Arrogant Thumb Suckers

Some people have faith in the God of their faith. Others seem to have faith in godlessness. And yet again, other onlookers  seem to be confused, not really knowing whether one position of the other makes more sense in any kind of absolute terms, and perhaps wondering why the discussion generates such passionate debates.

Those on both sides seem just a bit too certain and willing to cast aspersions on the moral character of those in the opposition. What has pride got to do with it?

There is there is, or there isn't a God. Our believing one way or the other doesn't alter the truth of the matter.

Believing in God doesn't make people somehow automatically good. Nor does disbelieving automatically make people bad. But clearly both sides are capable of being arrogant.

Having faith in the God of one's faith doesn't make a person deserving of righteous scorn, or ridicule. Nor does being an arrogant godless heathen make a person less human.

What's the point of belittling an arrogant thumb sucker who takes pride in sucking.

It seems that there are those on both sides of this issue who are arrogant thumb suckers. The discussion seems to always degenerate into a game of up-man-ship. The winner is the is the one who is better at smearing the opposition.

If there is a God, I wonder how many truly know him, or are simply self delusional. It seems to me those that truly know him would have no reason to argue about it.

In the story of the New Testament the one person that I most truly admire is St. Thomas. I admire him because of his personal honesty and respect for what it means to know something factually.  How does Jesus respond to Thomas?

John 20:29 Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

In this passage, although Jesus chastises Thomas, he also confirms that seeing is believing. Thomas, perhaps, is not as good as other saints, but neither did Jesus curse him.  To me, personally, I prefer Thomas' honesty.  I cannot declare to believe in unseen or unknowable things even if that would make me somehow appear to be a better person in the eyes of people with faith in the God of their faith.

I simple want to be honest with myself about what I know to be true and what I do not know to be true.

In all cases, at all times the feeling of "deadly" certainty is potentially dangerous.  Those who are willing to die for a cause are often just as willing to kill for it.

If that results in me becoming the target of a smear campaign by those "blessed" with faith in the God of their faith, then so be it.

The Wall is Tumbling Down

In the first amendment of the Constitution, there are two clauses that have traditionally been recognized as creating a "wall of separation between church and state".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion  -- read More

and

 ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...  read More

But  it was Jefferson who actually first used the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state." The phrase is now used as short-hand way of referring to the Establishment Clause.  read More


Jefferson himself admired the teachings of Jesus, but, as a man of the enlightenment, he couldn't stand the biblical references to miracles and supernatural events.  They bothered him so much that he wrote his own version of the New Testament.  read More

Jefferson apparently couldn't stand the overbearing demands to conform that permeated religious communities of his day.  He was, one might say, a free thinker.  He obviously preferred secular reasoning be used in matters of governance.


In the privacy of one's own mind, people should be free to "believe" as they want.  But no religiously motivated agenda from an outside source should be imposed on another against their will.


Nine of the original 13 colonies had official religions.  Though most of the founding fathers were deist, they worried that a religion might gain a disproportionate influence if religion were left unchecked in the wider public arena of governance. In their day, the word "secular" didn't carry the negative connotations that it does today.


Ironically, the true danger to our constitutionally guaranteed right to free thought (freedom of religion) doesn't come from the all inclusive secular community but from a more narrowly defined religious agenda.


No one can any longer believe that politicians are merely leveraging voters by wrapping themselves in a mantle of religiosity.  It is an all out cultural war.  And it is a war started by the religious right to defeat secular reason.  The history of this war goes back several decades and it may have, in fact, always been present here in America, perhaps from even before the Constitution was adopted.


And it is clear that the GOP backs the "Culture War" against our secular system of government.  read More