Recently I was asked by someone with whom I debate frequently about religious matters: Do you accept the Bible as written? For me, the answer was easy, because of my interest in Christian and Islamic history. The answer is no. I believe the Christian world requires an honest review of what it means to be a Christian, because what is a “Christian?” Even Jesus claimed to be a Jew.
Regarding accepting the Bible as written, the Old Testament is difficult to assess, mostly because of its antiquity, but also because its authorship is unidentifiable. The New Testament (NT), however, being relatively recent, can be traced. Its authorship can be negatively identified (meaning we know who didn’t write certain books), and its history can be followed.
As such, there are in existence over 5,000 versions of the Bible. There is no question that a man named Jesus existed who put forth profound ideas of love and peace. But there’s also no question that only 17% of Jesus’ teachings cannot be found in Hellenistic and Jewish philosophy pre-dating the birth of Jesus. In other words, 83% of the works attributed to Jesus can be credited to other sources. My personal discovery is not simply a dry mathematical analysis of the Jesus’ works quantified, nor am I suggesting that Jesus plagiarized. I’m suggesting that the four canonized gospels were edited subjectively; they were modified to address a contemporary political issue, and specifically selected for canonization. And, taking it one step further, of the three synoptic gospels, there really is only one source: the mysterious “Q.” So, viewing it academically, only one book of the 80 (or so) gospels makes claims of the Jesus who Christians worship as God. I can’t remember for sure, but I believe Matthew and Mark were adopted from Q, and Luke was written from Matthew (it’s been a while since I researched it). John, the final canonized gospel, is a different story of Jesus altogether.
I focus on the four canonized gospels because those books provide the core of Christian philosophy. Looking at the other books of the NT is where we can find the “Pauline” Christianity. Pauline Christianity is what Paul preached after his conversion when he traveled throughout the Holy Land, Greece, and modern Turkey. And here’s the point of contention: comparing Pauline Christianity with the Gnostic gospels we see quite a divergence from the “original” Christianity.
Since the 300s, Christians have dismissed the Gnostics as heretics, but an academic review of pre-Constantine Christianity shows quite a different form of Christianity, one that taught the unity (versus trinity) of God through the mystic teachings of the Prophet Jesus. Those original followers of Jesus were the Gnostics (from Greek “gnosis,” meaning “knowledge”). Since the Council of Nicaea in 325, the Nicene Creed has formed the basis for post-Constantine Christianity, which survives in various forms today. The pagan emperor Constantine used Christianity for political purposes. He called the Council of Nicaea, but he didn’t accept Christianity until his deathbed. So I oppose the common idea that “error” has crept in to the Bible. No doubt there were minor syntactical copying errors in the early days of hand-copying the Bible, but I attribute the vast differences in the various versions of the Bible to intentional misrepresentation of the teachings of Jesus.
The questionable authorship, the political workings to use the religion, and the need to control the knowledge makes me question the deepest core of Christian faith. Nothing of what I’ve written here even addresses the historical parallels between Egyptian Osiris, Greek Dionysus, and Persian Mithras, all of which pre-dated Jesus, and all of whom were child-kings, were born to virgin mothers on December 25, had twelve disciples, died as martyrs, and ascended to take his throne as lord of the universe. The early Catholics called those ancient religions “Diabolical Mimicry,” which meant that those religions were created by the Devil to confuse people after the birth of Christ to cast doubts as to his role as the Savior. To me, it’s more logical that the Constantine Christians adopted those ancient stories to give credibility to their political version of Christianity.
So, do I accept the Bible as written? No. I believe that the original teachings of Jesus were hijacked by politicians. There are literally almost 80 gospels that explain the life of Jesus, only three of which attest to his divinity (written from a single source), and those became the official “canonized” gospels. The Constantine Christians, who created modern Christian theology, have no credibility.
So what should happen now? If, in fact, the bulk of Christians are worshipping the Christianity of Constantine, modified for fourth-century political movements and Christianized pagan ritual, then Christianity, as a religion, is practicing false worship. Christmas, Easter, and the doctrine of the Trinity are all rooted in pre-Christian pagan worship, and historically have nothing to do with Jesus, regardless of the justification in celebrating such ritual. If Jesus truly was sent by God, Christianity would be wise to heed God's word, not the word of fourth-century pagan politicians. The church should review the history of Jesus' teachings and realign the church with his true teachings. The works of Celsus need to be re-examined. The works of once-revered and now-shunned Origen, who opposed Celsus, should be reviewed. Celsus understood the Hellenistic and Jewish histories and wrote “blasphemously” against Christian theology, when, in reality, he was Christianity’s prime apologist.
So I cannot understand how anyone can accept the Bible as written, with its countless technical flaws and staggering quantity of “revisions.” Man’s Free Will has altered God’s word, and the masses pray to the word of man.
January 1, 2007
Saddam Swings
The short-sighted politics of George Bush and his loyal supporters were on display today with the hanging of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Without the Baath party's regional stability Iran is growing unchecked and Iraq's porous borders are allowing in hordes of fanatical Muslim terrorists to set up new Afghan-style training camps. But this is not news. This is the continuing evolution of a disastrous foreign policy.
So while our nation's vengeance is satisfied by Saddam swinging in the gallows, I hope the conservatives are content because in Saddam's place are now thousands of terrorists waiting to welcome Iran's missiles into their arsenal. So cheer Saddam's death, but remember that 3,000 US soldiers have died in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden still lives.
So while our nation's vengeance is satisfied by Saddam swinging in the gallows, I hope the conservatives are content because in Saddam's place are now thousands of terrorists waiting to welcome Iran's missiles into their arsenal. So cheer Saddam's death, but remember that 3,000 US soldiers have died in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden still lives.
October 25, 2006
Time for a New Strategy
Originally the Republican Administration sold the war in Iraq because of “evidence” of an impending nuclear threat, a threat that evolved into a general case about weapons of mass destruction. Faulty intelligence persuaded Congress to authorize funds for the war and in March of 2003 our troops were pulling down statues of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and the President experienced one of his proudest moments with the “Mission Accomplished” embarrassment aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
As the war progressed and no WMDs were located, the war evolved into a case of Saddam Hussein’s involvement with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Subsequently, thousands of pages of documentation proved otherwise, and the reasons for war have further evolved into a fight against terrorism in general.
The republican president’s reasons for the war in Iraq are as elusive as his general strategy, a strategy still so mysterious that the slogan “stay the course” has been adopted to satisfy public demand for information. That empty slogan has provided the backbone for the president’s raison d’être, and the catch phrase “cut and run” is used to label the tactic of those who questioned the president’s policy of “staying the course.” Interestingly, with the president’s war-approval rating (CNN/Time) down to 20% and the mid-term election less than two weeks away, the president has become unexpectedly open to something other than “staying the course.” Undoubtedly, the president’s new openness is related to the threat to republican control of both Houses of Congress.
I worked at the US Senate during the republican revolution of 1994. As humiliating as it was to be ousted from our “majority” offices, the education was enlightening and I am proud to have witnessed such historic passage of events in American history. But less than 12 years later, thanks largely to the tunnel-vision politics of President Bush, the republicans are on the verge of losing that control. At the time people blamed the Clinton Administration’s arrogance and alleged involvement in scandal. And now just the opposite is happening: the party that swore to improve Washington has been infected by its venom, becoming lost in their own scandals and arrogance.
What’s wonderful about democracy is that we can revolt peacefully when our government becomes out of control, and the Bush Administration’s policies are careening wildly. The president’s insistence on “staying the course” has led us into an unprecedented debacle, for which he even refuses to accept responsibility. This month, October of 2006, could be the month of the largest US casualties since the war began. The United States has now been engaged in war in Iraq longer than in it fought against the Nazis and Japan during World War II. And for what? There were no WMDs. Hussein was not tied to 9/11. Iraq was not a terrorist haven before US forces invaded.
President Bush today insisted that we were “winning” the war in Iraq. Apparently, his definition of winning includes increasing death rates and no foreseeable exit strategy. Although he asserts that Iraq is a terrorist haven, he refuses to send the quantity of troops necessary to fight the war effectively. Colin Powell stated that 300,000 troops were required to win in Iraq and other generals have come around in the recent months with similar assertions. If the president believes his goal is to destroy terrorism, then why does he not supply the necessary troops? If he believes in his heart that America will win in Iraq, why does he not provide all the necessary resources? Is he not Commander-in-Chief? Why does he give in to such political pressure to keep troop levels low? In fact, Bush’s inaction has allowed terrorism to fester. The republicans' first failure was to invade Iraq, their continuing failure is to not put forth sufficient effort to be successful.
The president and his party have failed the troops, they have failed the American people, and because of their mindless strategy of “staying the course” they are failing in Iraq. The American people have to remove from power the supporters of an Administration guilty of at least negligence and at most genocide. We need to take these serious responsibilities away from those who really do not know how to handle them and give them to someone who can.
The republican strategy has carved another Afghanistan out of Iraq, with warlords in control and terrorists training camps in abundance, only this time they are training on American soldiers. Unfortunately, therefore, we cannot walk away. The only way to be successful in the war in Iraq is to establish the massive troop levels as foreseen by Colin Powell. The Bush Republicans created this vast terrorist training camp and because of their treacherous incompetence, they must not be allowed to let it continue.
When you vote in the mid-term elections, vote for the candidates who have new ideas on how to win in Iraq. We can no longer keep in power the republicans who have insisted on “staying the course.”
As the war progressed and no WMDs were located, the war evolved into a case of Saddam Hussein’s involvement with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Subsequently, thousands of pages of documentation proved otherwise, and the reasons for war have further evolved into a fight against terrorism in general.
The republican president’s reasons for the war in Iraq are as elusive as his general strategy, a strategy still so mysterious that the slogan “stay the course” has been adopted to satisfy public demand for information. That empty slogan has provided the backbone for the president’s raison d’être, and the catch phrase “cut and run” is used to label the tactic of those who questioned the president’s policy of “staying the course.” Interestingly, with the president’s war-approval rating (CNN/Time) down to 20% and the mid-term election less than two weeks away, the president has become unexpectedly open to something other than “staying the course.” Undoubtedly, the president’s new openness is related to the threat to republican control of both Houses of Congress.
I worked at the US Senate during the republican revolution of 1994. As humiliating as it was to be ousted from our “majority” offices, the education was enlightening and I am proud to have witnessed such historic passage of events in American history. But less than 12 years later, thanks largely to the tunnel-vision politics of President Bush, the republicans are on the verge of losing that control. At the time people blamed the Clinton Administration’s arrogance and alleged involvement in scandal. And now just the opposite is happening: the party that swore to improve Washington has been infected by its venom, becoming lost in their own scandals and arrogance.
What’s wonderful about democracy is that we can revolt peacefully when our government becomes out of control, and the Bush Administration’s policies are careening wildly. The president’s insistence on “staying the course” has led us into an unprecedented debacle, for which he even refuses to accept responsibility. This month, October of 2006, could be the month of the largest US casualties since the war began. The United States has now been engaged in war in Iraq longer than in it fought against the Nazis and Japan during World War II. And for what? There were no WMDs. Hussein was not tied to 9/11. Iraq was not a terrorist haven before US forces invaded.
President Bush today insisted that we were “winning” the war in Iraq. Apparently, his definition of winning includes increasing death rates and no foreseeable exit strategy. Although he asserts that Iraq is a terrorist haven, he refuses to send the quantity of troops necessary to fight the war effectively. Colin Powell stated that 300,000 troops were required to win in Iraq and other generals have come around in the recent months with similar assertions. If the president believes his goal is to destroy terrorism, then why does he not supply the necessary troops? If he believes in his heart that America will win in Iraq, why does he not provide all the necessary resources? Is he not Commander-in-Chief? Why does he give in to such political pressure to keep troop levels low? In fact, Bush’s inaction has allowed terrorism to fester. The republicans' first failure was to invade Iraq, their continuing failure is to not put forth sufficient effort to be successful.
The president and his party have failed the troops, they have failed the American people, and because of their mindless strategy of “staying the course” they are failing in Iraq. The American people have to remove from power the supporters of an Administration guilty of at least negligence and at most genocide. We need to take these serious responsibilities away from those who really do not know how to handle them and give them to someone who can.
The republican strategy has carved another Afghanistan out of Iraq, with warlords in control and terrorists training camps in abundance, only this time they are training on American soldiers. Unfortunately, therefore, we cannot walk away. The only way to be successful in the war in Iraq is to establish the massive troop levels as foreseen by Colin Powell. The Bush Republicans created this vast terrorist training camp and because of their treacherous incompetence, they must not be allowed to let it continue.
When you vote in the mid-term elections, vote for the candidates who have new ideas on how to win in Iraq. We can no longer keep in power the republicans who have insisted on “staying the course.”
November 9, 2004
Sabbath Chic
Within a period of a few months, America has been transformed from a Godless hell-bound nation into one that is not only more Christian, but one in which each individual is empowered to announce it publicly. It is now fashionable to be Christian. And this transformation owes its success to the stylistic leadership of President George Bush and his neoconservative entourage.
In his closing argument at the final debate of the 2004 presidential election, President Bush stated, “I believe that God wants everybody to be free. And that's been part of my foreign policy.” President Bush has also publicly announced that he approves of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Indeed, the President is blurring the line between the 230 year-precedent of “separation of church and state.” So what does it mean? It means that the Bush Administration wants to make America moral by creating legislation, and the only way to do that is to amend the US Constitution.
For the New Moralists to improve morality, all pornography will have to be outlawed, as well as violence on television and video games. Amendment I of the Constitution will have to be dissolved and a new amendment created that will change the phrase, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The new Amendment will also have to remove the clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” if the Bush Administration wants to modify the right to choose, or ban gay marriage.
But then again, the Bush Administration already possesses selective disregard for the Constitution, so why end now? We really don’t even need to amend the Constitution – the President finds ways around that. Amendment IV states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” George Bush’s Patriot Act insolently neglects this Constitutional right. Did the President not take an oath to uphold the US Constitution?
In its history, the United States has not seen such a blatant disrespect of our founding fathers’ sacrifices and triumphs, as well as the millions of lives lost for American Democracy. George Bush’s assault on the US Constitution and 230 years of established democratic precedent is the single-most important threat from the neoconservative and New Moral agenda.
Does Western Civilization need to reconsider its moral compass? I believe so. Is destroying the world’s pinnacle of democratic governance the means to accomplish this reconsideration? No. If the President truly wanted “everyone to be free,” he would end this assault on our most basic civil liberties.
In his closing argument at the final debate of the 2004 presidential election, President Bush stated, “I believe that God wants everybody to be free. And that's been part of my foreign policy.” President Bush has also publicly announced that he approves of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Indeed, the President is blurring the line between the 230 year-precedent of “separation of church and state.” So what does it mean? It means that the Bush Administration wants to make America moral by creating legislation, and the only way to do that is to amend the US Constitution.
For the New Moralists to improve morality, all pornography will have to be outlawed, as well as violence on television and video games. Amendment I of the Constitution will have to be dissolved and a new amendment created that will change the phrase, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The new Amendment will also have to remove the clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” if the Bush Administration wants to modify the right to choose, or ban gay marriage.
But then again, the Bush Administration already possesses selective disregard for the Constitution, so why end now? We really don’t even need to amend the Constitution – the President finds ways around that. Amendment IV states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” George Bush’s Patriot Act insolently neglects this Constitutional right. Did the President not take an oath to uphold the US Constitution?
In its history, the United States has not seen such a blatant disrespect of our founding fathers’ sacrifices and triumphs, as well as the millions of lives lost for American Democracy. George Bush’s assault on the US Constitution and 230 years of established democratic precedent is the single-most important threat from the neoconservative and New Moral agenda.
Does Western Civilization need to reconsider its moral compass? I believe so. Is destroying the world’s pinnacle of democratic governance the means to accomplish this reconsideration? No. If the President truly wanted “everyone to be free,” he would end this assault on our most basic civil liberties.
November 8, 2004
A Mandate was Awarded
There was one politician in the 2004 Presidential election who received a mandate based on the American popular vote. It wasn’t the President, nor his rival Democratic Senator John Kerry, but a candidate running a popular race extra-Constitutionally. His campaign was not for the Presidency, however, but a campaign to win public support for his war on terror, and he has now received the Mandate he needed. Osama Bin Laden now has the license he needed to wage all-out war with the United States.
Bush stated (paraphrased), “Osama Bin Laden will do anything to destroy our American Way of Life, our values. He hates freedom.” If that’s true, Bin Laden now has more authority than ever to wage war against the American aggressors. According to the President, Bin Laden hates America, and as such, it was a brilliant political strategy on Bin Laden’s part to help convince Americans to vote for George Bush.
Neoconservatives immediately cried “Osama Bin Laden votes for Kerry,” and therefore logically determined that to remain safe, America needed to vote for Bush. After all, if Bin Laden endorses Kerry, wouldn’t it be prudent to have a president who will crush Bin Laden?
On the contrary, Bin Laden wanted Bush in power. Bush’s religious fanaticism reveals his Christian war to be more self-evident, which gives Bin Laden not only support from the actual terrorists, but the Muslim populace as well. Bin Laden is no longer seen as a fanatical fringe political terrorist, he now as the recognition as a legitimate freedom fighter for “Islamic” ideals against American aggression. Thanks to the brilliant campaign strategy of Karl Rove, the buffoonery of his elected President, and the unwitting wishes of the American politic, Osama Bin Laden now has a mandate to expand his evil war on the West. Bush’s move is next, and the thought of the subsequent Bin Laden action is frightening.
Bush stated (paraphrased), “Osama Bin Laden will do anything to destroy our American Way of Life, our values. He hates freedom.” If that’s true, Bin Laden now has more authority than ever to wage war against the American aggressors. According to the President, Bin Laden hates America, and as such, it was a brilliant political strategy on Bin Laden’s part to help convince Americans to vote for George Bush.
Neoconservatives immediately cried “Osama Bin Laden votes for Kerry,” and therefore logically determined that to remain safe, America needed to vote for Bush. After all, if Bin Laden endorses Kerry, wouldn’t it be prudent to have a president who will crush Bin Laden?
On the contrary, Bin Laden wanted Bush in power. Bush’s religious fanaticism reveals his Christian war to be more self-evident, which gives Bin Laden not only support from the actual terrorists, but the Muslim populace as well. Bin Laden is no longer seen as a fanatical fringe political terrorist, he now as the recognition as a legitimate freedom fighter for “Islamic” ideals against American aggression. Thanks to the brilliant campaign strategy of Karl Rove, the buffoonery of his elected President, and the unwitting wishes of the American politic, Osama Bin Laden now has a mandate to expand his evil war on the West. Bush’s move is next, and the thought of the subsequent Bin Laden action is frightening.
American Hypocrisy
How many God-fearing, freedom-loving Christian Americans can attest to the wretched levels of morality in American society? How many loathe the loss of morals: the free sex, rape and murder rates, teen pregnancy rates, and abortion rates? Pedophilia? Who or what is to blame? The politicians? The Constitution? The family? The church, the State, or separation thereof? Schools? Islam? Is it Hollywood? Violence on television or video games? Immigrants? Why does our society seem to be spinning out of control toward an abyss of Biblical Doomsday with regard to morality? How can it be stopped? As Christians, can the majority of the American population put an end to it? I’m not sure of the answer, but I am sure that those same morality-preaching Christians are the culprits; they are both the offenders and the victims of their own hypocrisy.
How many of these same Moral Christians buy pornography? How many surf the web for tight teenage naked girls? How many “judge” lest be judged? How many steal, whether it be a car, a sandwich from the office refrigerator, or simply an innocent song from the internet? How many lie daily? My father preached morality, but when Playboy featured Madonna in the nude, he not only bought a copy, but he also let us children see it. I was in junior high – and it was great! But this story is not about my father specifically, but Christian America generally, and about a coworker who wants to change the US Constitution to make Christianity America’s “primary” religion.
His argument: the US is a Christian country founded on historically Christian values, and new immigrants (primarily Muslims) are coming to America to change “American way of life,” and he wants America restored to its “original” sense of values. The irony: he’s an immigrant from Canada. I don’t think I was ever able to make him see that he was guilty of the same “crime:” he is an immigrant trying to change my American way of life.
Amendment I of the Bill of Rights does not call to separate the church and state, per se, but states specifically that government “shall make no law establishing religion.” My coworker wants to replace this amendment to make Christianity the primary religion in America, to enforce American values. His main argument was that our laws were based Christian law, primarily the Ten Commandments, and that our Forefathers “intended” America to be a Christian society. He didn’t appreciate it when I suggested that, actually then, Judaism should be the primary religion, as the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament.
“If America is to be primarily Christian,” I asked,”then why wasn’t it written as such in the Bill of Rights? Why be so vague?” His predictable argument was that our forefathers hadn’t considered other religions having such a high degree of political influence, and therefore weren’t considered into the thought process. Maybe so. But we can’t interpret the rules based on what someone may have intended 250 years ago – we have to apply the language to our modern society.
He tried to convince me of the superior morality of Christian life during the same day that he had earlier placed a cutout from a pornographic magazine in front of my face showing a woman’s vagina. This is Christian morality? This is the morality to which we need to return America by changing the Bill of Rights? Apparently he did he not see his hypocrisy.
He was raised Catholic in Windsor, Ontario, but immigrated to the US to seek lower tax rates (fortunately, he was not eligible to vote in the 2004 Presidential election – not that it matters now). His catholic girlfriend is unaware of the women he dates outside their relationship. He talks openly of crude sex acts that he would enjoy trying on random women. So, as you see, his moral argument for the superiority of Christian values was extremely thin.
Do these people, who are appalled at the lack of morality in our society, not realize that every time they buy a pornographic magazine they contribute to the decline of morality they so vehemently claim to defend? Do they not realize that having pre-marital sex is Biblically apprehensible, although they claim to be Christians, or specifically in this case, Catholics? I pointed out that he was violating the Commandments and his response was the classic Catholic Get Out of Jail Free Card, “Hey, I’m a sinner, and I’m not perfect.” Well, both labels are true here: according to his belief system, he is a sinner, and no, he’s not perfect, but it’s no excuse for actively contributing to moral decline.
How can such people be taken seriously? Almost every American male I know views pornography with testosterone-driven pride, freely downloads pornographic material from the internet, yet cannot understand why the morals are loosening in this country. I guess it’s easier to blame the Muslims than to modify their behavior. Both Islam and Christianity preach high values, but many Christians don’t practice high values. I reference pornography frequently in this commentary, but I'm not suggesting that pornography is the sole source of moral decline, nor its primary driver. Pornography is used here in reference to my hypocritical coworker. Are you reading this and claim Christianity as your religion? Do you purchase or view pornographic material? Do you solicit prostitutes? Do you wonder why there is a moral decline of society? Do you want a constitutional amendment to make Christianity the primary religion of the United State? Forcing others to accept a religion that many of its practitioners fail to practice will not reverse the moral decline of society, but it certainly will erode the fragile cultural relationships in society.
So I’m confused as to how changing the Bill of Rights to enforce Christianity will improve the moral decline of our society. I’m uncertain how Christian values are superior, when average Christians do not engage in moral behavior. My coworker is not yet American, but soon will be, and he will join the ranks of millions of other American hypocrites seeking the elusive reason for the decline of American values. Where is it? Who is to blame? The answer is in the soul of every American who does not practice their professed beliefs. Regardless of faith, it is adherence to the professed values of that faith that make morality – not the enforced subjection of others. So I’ll do my best to prevent another immigrant from attempting to change traditional American values.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign many of the Bush voters cited “morality” as a reason why they voted for Bush. Interestingly, Churchill County, Nevada not only voted to re-elect Bush, but they also voted to keep open the brothels (by a 2-1 margin). Hmm…Morality for Bush, Brothels for Everyone Else. Now that’s American Hypocrisy.
How many of these same Moral Christians buy pornography? How many surf the web for tight teenage naked girls? How many “judge” lest be judged? How many steal, whether it be a car, a sandwich from the office refrigerator, or simply an innocent song from the internet? How many lie daily? My father preached morality, but when Playboy featured Madonna in the nude, he not only bought a copy, but he also let us children see it. I was in junior high – and it was great! But this story is not about my father specifically, but Christian America generally, and about a coworker who wants to change the US Constitution to make Christianity America’s “primary” religion.
His argument: the US is a Christian country founded on historically Christian values, and new immigrants (primarily Muslims) are coming to America to change “American way of life,” and he wants America restored to its “original” sense of values. The irony: he’s an immigrant from Canada. I don’t think I was ever able to make him see that he was guilty of the same “crime:” he is an immigrant trying to change my American way of life.
Amendment I of the Bill of Rights does not call to separate the church and state, per se, but states specifically that government “shall make no law establishing religion.” My coworker wants to replace this amendment to make Christianity the primary religion in America, to enforce American values. His main argument was that our laws were based Christian law, primarily the Ten Commandments, and that our Forefathers “intended” America to be a Christian society. He didn’t appreciate it when I suggested that, actually then, Judaism should be the primary religion, as the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament.
“If America is to be primarily Christian,” I asked,”then why wasn’t it written as such in the Bill of Rights? Why be so vague?” His predictable argument was that our forefathers hadn’t considered other religions having such a high degree of political influence, and therefore weren’t considered into the thought process. Maybe so. But we can’t interpret the rules based on what someone may have intended 250 years ago – we have to apply the language to our modern society.
He tried to convince me of the superior morality of Christian life during the same day that he had earlier placed a cutout from a pornographic magazine in front of my face showing a woman’s vagina. This is Christian morality? This is the morality to which we need to return America by changing the Bill of Rights? Apparently he did he not see his hypocrisy.
He was raised Catholic in Windsor, Ontario, but immigrated to the US to seek lower tax rates (fortunately, he was not eligible to vote in the 2004 Presidential election – not that it matters now). His catholic girlfriend is unaware of the women he dates outside their relationship. He talks openly of crude sex acts that he would enjoy trying on random women. So, as you see, his moral argument for the superiority of Christian values was extremely thin.
Do these people, who are appalled at the lack of morality in our society, not realize that every time they buy a pornographic magazine they contribute to the decline of morality they so vehemently claim to defend? Do they not realize that having pre-marital sex is Biblically apprehensible, although they claim to be Christians, or specifically in this case, Catholics? I pointed out that he was violating the Commandments and his response was the classic Catholic Get Out of Jail Free Card, “Hey, I’m a sinner, and I’m not perfect.” Well, both labels are true here: according to his belief system, he is a sinner, and no, he’s not perfect, but it’s no excuse for actively contributing to moral decline.
How can such people be taken seriously? Almost every American male I know views pornography with testosterone-driven pride, freely downloads pornographic material from the internet, yet cannot understand why the morals are loosening in this country. I guess it’s easier to blame the Muslims than to modify their behavior. Both Islam and Christianity preach high values, but many Christians don’t practice high values. I reference pornography frequently in this commentary, but I'm not suggesting that pornography is the sole source of moral decline, nor its primary driver. Pornography is used here in reference to my hypocritical coworker. Are you reading this and claim Christianity as your religion? Do you purchase or view pornographic material? Do you solicit prostitutes? Do you wonder why there is a moral decline of society? Do you want a constitutional amendment to make Christianity the primary religion of the United State? Forcing others to accept a religion that many of its practitioners fail to practice will not reverse the moral decline of society, but it certainly will erode the fragile cultural relationships in society.
So I’m confused as to how changing the Bill of Rights to enforce Christianity will improve the moral decline of our society. I’m uncertain how Christian values are superior, when average Christians do not engage in moral behavior. My coworker is not yet American, but soon will be, and he will join the ranks of millions of other American hypocrites seeking the elusive reason for the decline of American values. Where is it? Who is to blame? The answer is in the soul of every American who does not practice their professed beliefs. Regardless of faith, it is adherence to the professed values of that faith that make morality – not the enforced subjection of others. So I’ll do my best to prevent another immigrant from attempting to change traditional American values.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign many of the Bush voters cited “morality” as a reason why they voted for Bush. Interestingly, Churchill County, Nevada not only voted to re-elect Bush, but they also voted to keep open the brothels (by a 2-1 margin). Hmm…Morality for Bush, Brothels for Everyone Else. Now that’s American Hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)