I'd argue that the writing was on the wall when marriage was legally defined and moved away from being a religious rite to being a secular right.

Tags: marriage ∙ religion ∙ secular ∙ Bookworm ∙ permissible ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ damage ∙ undesirables ∙ interracial marriages ∙ force of law ∙ Constitution ∙ man ∙ woman ∙ English common law ∙ Bible ∙ 20th Century ∙ Emperor Nero ∙ Mesopotamia ∙ China ∙ John Boswell ∙ Orthodox Church ∙ Native Americas ∙ third gender ∙ two-spirit ∙ mating ∙ pairbond ∙ raising a family ∙ Divine ∙ Old Testament ∙ biological ∙ monogamy ∙ permissible ∙ choice ∙ privilege ∙ right to vote ∙ Christian

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: textual differences ∙ new covenan ∙ Judaism ∙ Hawaiian culture and language ∙ Rome ∙ label ∙ deeds ∙ Decalogue ∙ New Testament ∙ tolerance ∙ extreme ∙ Hong Kong ∙ E pluribus unum ∙ Greece ∙ measure a man ∙ faith ∙ government ∙ Amerindians ∙ Jews ∙ Bible ∙ slavery ∙ trade ∙ religious freedom ∙ pluralism ∙ American ∙ religious virtue ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ Orthodox Jews ∙ Mormons ∙ Christian Scientists

So does that mean that the Decalogue has no value?

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ doctrine ∙ individual ∙ Bible ∙ Christians ∙ slavery ∙ libertarian ∙ government ∙ sponsored ∙ foreign aid ∙ domestic aid

❝❝You do realize that if "the Bible is all one piece," you can't pick and choose bits and pieces to quote, don't you? If you eat all your veggies and are especially nice, I won't demand that you start following all those bits in Numbers and Leviticus. We won't talk about the deleted texts now.

How do you suppose those disciples did it? They had to work without a New Testament.

---

So, only the True Believers® are allowed to quote the Bible as they choose because they are special.

I told you before, that says more about your faith than it does my arguments.

It's not enough that I be a good person, I must supplicate myself before the altar of your dogma and beg forgiveness.

Not going to happen, My gods gave me a pass. They also told me what was up.

It's not your god who demands those things. It's certain pesky humans who claim to speak in his name.

---

All this fixation on the Bible is missing the forest for the trees.

Your scripture isn't nearly as important as how you manifest it.

I don't care about your god. I do care about the people around me. I'd rather not fight a religious war, but I can fight to defend me and mine.

The way I see it, it's better if we humans at least talk to each other. Maybe argue and wave fingers in each others faces.

You have your god, I have mine. For all we know they may go out together for beer and wine every seventh year. So let's honor the gods and treat each other decently.❞❞

Tags: Christian ∙ Bible ∙ New Testament ∙ disciples ∙ Numbers ∙ Leviticus ∙ true believers ∙ good people ∙ gods ∙ pesky humans ∙ manifest ∙ scripture ∙ religious war ∙ argue

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Bible ∙ Kentucky ∙ Cliven Bundy ∙ Federal government ∙ Oprah Winfrey ∙ malicious prosecution ∙ public schools ∙ psychiartic association ∙ diagnose ∙ Donald Trump ∙ rate cuts ∙ tax plan ∙ Federal Reserve ∙ mismanaged ∙ Canada ∙ Angie Abdou ∙ cultural appropriatio ∙ treehouse ∙ zoning law ∙ Harvard ∙ fraternaties

❝❝If someone wants to forbid gay marriage, what would they do if the law only allowed gay marriage? If someone wanted Bible study in schools, what would they do if the law only allowed the Koran in schools? If someone wanted a Christian president, what would they do if the law prohibited a Christian president?❞❞
     — NeoWayland, United We Stand - Dragging religion into politics

Tags: maxims ∙ forbidden ∙ gay marriage ∙ Bible ∙ Koran ∙ Christian

❝❝The Bible may be a very fine book, but “tain't mine.” I don't expect to follow it's rules any more than I would expect you to follow Sikhism.

It's also not the only source of wisdom, or even the “Golden Rule.”❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Bible ∙ Sikhism ∙ wisdom ∙ Golden Rule

❝❝You do realize that if “the Bible is all one piece,” you can't pick and choose bits and pieces to quote, don't you? If you eat all your veggies and are especially nice, I won't demand that you start following all those bits in Numbers and Leviticus. We won't talk about the deleted texts now.

How do you suppose those disciples did it? They had to work without a New Testament.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: Christianity ∙ Bible ∙ Numbers ∙ Leviticus ∙ disciples ∙ New Testament ∙ maxims

❝❝If you can defend your beliefs without using the Bible, that means that you've embraced those beliefs and thought long and hard about making them a part of your everyday life.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: Christianity ∙ Bible ∙ maxims ∙ faith

❝❝Simple questions.

Why should any religion be enshrined in law? Raised above all others as THE Moral Standard?

Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?

Or at least something calling itself your religion.

---

Pardon, but that isn't the question.

Why should any religion be enshrined in law?

Shouldn't faith be between you and the Divine?

Shouldn't religion be your choice and not imposed on you by some government functionary?

Coke may be less disagreeable than Pepsi, but I don't want armed special agents making sure I drink it.

---

Only if you think government must be predicated on or derived from religion.

Which, thankfully, the Founders did not.

---

But it's not about if religions are "equal" or not.

It's about if a single religion should be enshrined in law. And what happens if you are not a member of the religion that is made part of law.

Should you be bound by a religion you are not a part of?

---

Yep, I did. And for very good reason.

I also said this:

Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?

---

I've really tried to be polite on this board, but believe when I say I've seen more than enough Christian intolerance to last me several lifetimes. It's not every Christian, but it is there. Nor are Christians alone in their intolerance.

What I am trying to say is that by making religion a part of government you're setting the grounds for much more intolerance.

Even if you stuck to Christians, you'd be asking for trouble. Should Catholics have precedence over Baptists? What about the Mormons and the Methodists?

---

Yep, that happens too.

But when someone defines intolerance as everyone else not putting that someone's religion over every thing else, well, the someone crossed the line and they are fair game.

---

No, that isn't what I said.

Look at what Moore said in the article. He's talking about defending Christianity in the law. And creating more law that incorporates "Christian principles."

"Do not murder." That's a good idea. It also predates Christianity by quite a bit and is shared by many cultures and faiths.

"Do not murder because of the Ten Commandments and what Jesus said." That's not the same thing and it adds baggage to something that should be simple.

---

Pardon, but that is an opinion.

My gods prefer that people work it out for themselves.

That's an opinion too.

---

You mean other than Roy Moore up there in the original post?

You’re talking about overturning God’s natural order ….

That's certainly a religious point of view.

---

Nondenominational? Ah, I see.

It's only the Christians that need apply? You don't need the Jews.

I live next to the Navajo reservation. Will you exclude the Sky People?

One of my neighbors three doors down is a Buddhist. Doesn't she get a say?

One of my companions is an atheist. She's also one of the wisest women I know. Should she get a say?

Why or why not?

---

And I've answered it several times, twice directly.

When you assume that government is based on a religion you are imposing and enshrining that religion.

When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.

---

Then why is Roy Moore making so much noise?

---

I'm not demanding that you give up your faith.

I'm asking why religion should be enshrined in law.

Faith is between you and the Divine, no other person can change that. It's up to you and your choices.

I'm asking for no sacrifice unless you believe that your religion should govern the faith and religion of others.

And if that's the case, I'm asking why.

---

No, actually we weren't.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the Christian God except in the date.

It's wholly remarkable in that it may well be the first document in history that didn't claim government power derived from the Divine.

Men of faith and men of reason deliberately chose not to make a public declaration of religion even as they acknowledged it's role in individual action.

They knew that faith must be chosen, not compelled.

---

Talk about timing…

I always find it amazing when I have to point out the U.S. was not founded as a "Christian nation" when one house of the national legislature is called the Senate.

I've written about this many times before. But please don't take my word for it.

http://www.usconstitution.net

That's a site created to explore and explain the Constitution. Look for yourself. Try to find any mention of the Bible or the Divine.

---

Considering the custom of the times, omitting "those words" was even more revolutionary than the Declaration of Independence and the battles that followed.

Again, that doesn't mean that the Founders weren't devout. It does mean that they knew about the English Civil War and the problems caused by some colonies and their religious restrictions.

I'd like to think that each of the Founders decided that if his church wasn't going to be "top dog," no one else's would be either.

And that is why Roy Moore is wrong.

---

Can you show where I'm wrong?

---

The question you should be asking yourself is not if the Founders were religious or if the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation."

No, the question is why the Founders, among the best educated men of their time, chose not to make the Constitution dependent on any faith.

I'll give you a hint. Too many people are in religion for the politics.

---

I am, and it relates to the question in the title of the post.

If anyone thinks their religion needs the force of law to back it up, then they are doing it wrong.

The law should neither help nor hinder religion. But no religion should rely on force either.

---

If it's a straw man, then why did Roy Moore say what he did?

There's a difference between personal faith and public policy.

---

Pardon, but I think that's wrong.

It's not that the American people hate the Divine. And I don't think they may object because it is a Christian policy.

I think they object because it is a religious rule made policy.❞❞

Tags: religion ∙ enshrined ∙ English Civil War ∙ Senate ∙ government power ∙ faith ∙ religious restrictions ∙ Bible ∙ Divine ∙ Christians ∙ Christianity ∙ Christian ∙ religious rule ∙ policy ∙ force of law ∙ Founders ∙ Constitution ∙ Christian nation ∙ Roy Moore

❝❝I've seen the arguments in enough other contexts to distrust anyone who claims rationality prevents any opposing view. Even more so when they dismiss any other possibility unheard because they have the Ultimate Truth That Must Not Be Questioned.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ humor ∙ Crux Files ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ climate change ∙ global warming ∙ distrust ∙ rationality prevents any opposing view ∙ Ultimate Truth That Must Not Be Questioned ∙ government approved line ∙ anthropogenic climate change ∙ The Science Is Settled ∙ criticism ∙ obedience ∙ dogma ∙ government ∙ science ∙ condemn ∙ Science as a Higher Authority ∙ Must Not Be Questioned ∙ advocate ∙ scientific ∙ human rights ∙ gay ∙ woman ∙ Navajo ∙ disabled ∙ politicos ∙ religious freedom ∙ Jewish ∙ Catholic ∙ Muslim ∙ Protestant ∙ Buddhist ∙ atheist ∙ moral relativity ∙ conservative ∙ liberal ∙ homosexuality ∙ religion ∙ guns ∙ virtues ∙ Pagan ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ Truth Out ∙ criminal corporations ∙ Republican ∙ no virtue or vice in the label ∙ That's the excuse, not the reason. ∙ race ∙ pedophilia ∙ religious oppression ∙ racist ∙ choice ∙ threat ∙ moral morass ∙ Satanists ∙ totalitarianism ∙ purged ∙ moral superiority ∙ Bible ∙ Pharisee ∙ scripture ∙ Divine

❝❝There's a very real question why there should be any government grants, but I will leave that for another time.

Assume for a moment that you ran a bookstore. Should you be required by law to carry the Bible even though you were not Christian and did not believe Christianity was a valid faith? What if someone complained because you didn't have it?

Should a vegan restaurant be required to sell pulled pork BBQ?

Should a health food store be required to sell pipe tobacco?

---

Except we know that government does mandate that some products and services be sold or provided.

Let's take another example or two, shall we?

Imagine you are a lawyer or accountant. You know a specific businessman is crooked and can't be trusted. Should you be required to provided services?

Imagine you are an employer. Should you be required to verify the immigration status of each of your employees?

Most importantly, why should prior marginalization get a higher priority when it comes to the rule of law? Doesn't that lead to abuse of it's own when the formerly victimized class games the system?

---

Ah, so you are going to stick to "class of people." That's the problem. People aren't their labels. Or at least they shouldn't be.

Someone doesn't have higher moral authority because their group has been marginalized in the past.

And just in case you hadn't noticed, "American identity politics" is all about oppressing everyone else. All of which is predicated on the guilt of the former oppressor.

---

Black Lives Matter. All too ready to go after "white" cops, but doesn't want to address the problem of "black on black" crime. Nor does it want to address the major underlying problem, single parent families. Something that was encouraged by government, effectively relegating inner city families to poverty. Nor do they accept any criticism of their movement.

Much of third and fourth wave feminism. Apparently feminism is no longer about equality, it's about forcing men to sit down and shut up. And if a man complains, he's accused of rape.

The recent kerfuffle over the "redesigned" rainbow flag that put black and brown stripes at the top so that "people of color" had "representation." Literally "my victimhood is more important than your victimhood."

Identity politics is built on a carefully maintained hierarchy of victimhood. You're not allowed to speak unless you rank high enough with your victimhood or have demonstrated sufficient "compassion," usually by drawing attention to the "problem." But never actually solving anything.

And you are not allowed to question the victimhood.

---

Stop.

Step back. You are excusing their behavior.

Look at what has been done, not at the justifications.

Look at what is allowed within the groups.

Your enabling is just one example of what has locked people into their victimhood.

---

What you've given is excuses why people can't be held accountable.

Black Lives Matter is pushing a narrative that all police interactions with minorities but especially with "blacks" are racist. That's not true. And as I said, they overlook "black" on "black" crime that does not fit with the narrative.

It's victimhood I don't like, especially when perpetuated by bad government policy and "community outreach" that exploits the victims by keeping them victims.

---

And the courts were wrong.

Not because interracial marriages were wrong (they aren't). But because government can't be trusted to make individual moral decisions for you.

If you didn't choose your morality and if you do not commit to your morality, is it really yours?

Or did it just get sacrificed for the greater good?

---

Remember, most of the complaints against the current President are because he is doing the wrong moral things. Or at least, according to some people. Such as pulling out of the Paris accord.

Frankly there are people I want to discriminate against. There are evangelical Christians I want nothing to do with. There are radical feminists that I also don't want anything to do with. My list also includes some of the climate alarmists, the man-boy love crowd, anyone associated with a child beauty pageant, the extra-devout followers of Silver Ravenwolf, pretty much any organized political party, and a few dozen others.

Should government protect those people from my discrimination?

---

Actually we don't know that pulling out of the Paris accord is dangerous for the planet.

Here's what we do know. The "debate" about climate change has been heavily weighed on one side. A recent study has some of the most prominent climate alarmists admitting that the predictions didn't match the reality. President Obama committed the US, but the G20 and Obama didn't call it a treaty so it wouldn't have to go to the US Senate for approval. These aren't exactly moral actions.

Commerce is based on voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults. There's no “public service” about it. A company improves it's product or service (and lowers the price) because it wants to keep business from the competition. The "moral good" is based on pure greed. Nothing government demands from a business won't impose greater costs on the customer. Government relies on force. When government acts against people, it distorts the economy and morality.

It's not about public service, and commerce shouldn't answer to corrupt politicos.

---

The data was fudged. The people who fudged it knew it. The people who sought to make it a political issue beyond the control of any single government knew it.

If it's not about "saving the planet," then you have to ask what it is about. Especially when there is an everchanging deadline and No One Is Allowed To Question the failed predictions.

The entire movement is built on computer models, not science. I can't emphasize that enough. Models, not science. If the models have bad assumptions and/or if the data has been changed, the models aren't accurate.

But, "the science is settled." So you aren't allowed to dissent. You wouldn't accept that from a Creationist, why accept it from people who benefit financially and politically from forcing their agenda?

---

That wasn't what I said.

The models haven't been accurate in more than a dozen years. Even before that, the models had to be "goosed" to show a link between the past and the present.

I've said before that I can create a spreadsheet that makes me a millionaire in a week. That doesn't mean that the spreadsheet is accurate. And it sure doesn't mean I should wave cash around.

If the model isn't accurate, if we know it's not accurate, and if the people pushing the model hardest know that it's not accurate, don't you think it's time to ask why we should use the model?

---

No, that is what you have been told that the model is.

I strongly urge you to take a closer look. And I would remind you that there is no science in history that has ever been considered holy writ and beyond criticism.

For example, if I wanted to know the average global temperature right now this very minute, I'd have to accept that most land based measuring stations are in developed areas, many in highly urban areas that influence the readings. Satillite measurements are better, but don't go back further than about sixty years. And most of the ocean is a mystery below a mile deep.

So what exactly is the global average temperature?

---

I'm not shy about it. I don't approve of their life choices. I especially don't approve when *insert group name here* demands that it is not enough for to acknowledge their words and actions, it must be celebrated as the only accepted truth.

I don't want them on the ballot. I don't want to do business with them. I don't want them in my town.

And I think they are corrupting society.

Again, should government protect them from my discrimination?

---

I may not be a pure libertarian when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, but I don't usually initiate force. It's sloppy and takes too much energy.

“How many NAMBLA neighbors do you have, anyway?”

One.

Once.

---

I've been a corporate VP and I've run my own business.

Can you point to the spot in the Constitution where it defines the powers of the Federal government to control who I can and can't do business with? How about the spot where it defines that I must do business with everyone who wants to do business with me? Because under the Tenth Amendment, there isn't one.

If government isn't defending my ability to choose as long as I accept the consequences, then government has failed.

Even if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.

Especially if my neighbors don't approve of my choice.

If I am not free to discriminate as I choose, then government is discriminating against me. And that is what we see now. Some choices are more equal than others.

---

Not really.

That clause is the most abused in the Constitution, largely because it does not place significant restrictions on the Federal government. By some interpretations, the government can do what it wants when it wants and despite what people want. When you consider that everything from FDA approval to requiring transgender bathrooms is shoved through that loophole, it's a wonder that there is anything left of the rest of the Constitution.

Even in your flawed interpretation, public accommodation only applies in certain cases. Some are more victimized than others, remember?

---

Volumes have also been written against it. For generations in fact, right back to to the Anti-Federalist Papers

And then there is always the practical common sense approach. Here's the clause straight from Article 1 Section 8.

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

I can tell you know many Diné, Hopi, Havasupai, and White Mountain Apache who think that "Great White Father speaks with forked tongue." Just look at what the Interior Department did when it came to mineral rights.

You've tried to tell me what the consensus says, but you haven't disputed my conclusions. The commerce clause has been used to expand Federal power far beyond the scope of the rest of the Constitution. The only other comparable Federal power grab in American history has been the USA PATRIOT Act and the open-ended declaration of hostilities that happened after 9-11.

---

Or we could just stop handing out government grants and do something radically different like lower taxes, reduce government spending, and let people decide what to do with their own money.

---

Church playgrounds aren't national religious issues unless government is funding them.

The First Amendment is very clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Neither help nor hinder. It's the only way to win this particular battle. Otherwise you have things like a Faith Based Initiative (for certain faiths approved by law) and school prayer.

---

I think we do. And it's right there in the First Amendment.

Don't.

If there is one thing worse than a politico wrapping themselves in the flag, it's a politico standing on religion wrapping themselves in a flag.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ government ∙ grants ∙ religion ∙ business ∙ bookstore ∙ Bible ∙ vegan ∙ pulled pork BBQ ∙ health food store ∙ pipe tobacco ∙ government mandate ∙ immigration ∙ marginalization ∙ rule of law ∙ moral authority ∙ Black Lives Matter ∙ third wave feminism ∙ fourth wave feminism ∙ equality ∙ rape ∙ rainbow flag ∙ victimhood ∙ victim hierarchy ∙ identity politics ∙ compassion ∙ interracial marriages ∙ moral decisions ∙ greater good ∙ Paris accord ∙ Christians ∙ RadFem ∙ climate alarmist ∙ man-boy love ∙ beauty pageant ∙ Silver Ravenwolf ∙ discrimination ∙ G20 ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Senate ∙ commerce ∙ commerce clause ∙ improves ∙ competition ∙ voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults ∙ computer models ∙ global temperature ∙ climate change ∙ Zero Agression Principle ∙ NAMBLA ∙ neighbors

Since I just spent forty-five minutes writing it as a post, you’re damn right I’m going to put it here.

Tags: Christianity ∙ prejudice ∙ Bible ∙ classic ∙ commenting

❝❝You want to impress me, come up with something more than "the Bible told me so.” Don't make threats about judgement and eternal flame. Don't tell me about the changes it's made in your life. Don’t tell me how it’s “saved you.” Don’t tell me how you have the hotline to the “Almighty." 

And don’t tell me “it’s God’s judgement” when you’re the one spouting the words.

Tell me about the changes your faith makes in the world around you. Tell me what you do that makes the world better than when you got here.  Tell me how your faith manifests through you. 

Tell me about how you pass it on.

If that "Living Word" exists, it has to be in the hearts and souls of those people who have really embraced it. It's not in a dusty book. The verses don't matter except to show you the way. Tell me what lives behind those printed words. Tell me how you turned your sacrifice into a blessing.

Tell me about love. Tell me about the love you showed today.

Your actions show that. 

Your next choice starts now.❞❞
     — from the private journal of NeoWayland

Tags: Christianity ∙ wisdom ∙ be careful what you wish for ∙ Bible ∙ love ∙ cross posted ∙ commenting

Pagan and magick books do not a terrorist make

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ Koran ∙ Bible ∙ Pagan ∙ Corporate Clone ∙ classic ∙ filmmaking ∙ TV production ∙ writers tools ∙ architecture ∙ thinking ∙ autism ∙ Asperger syndrome ∙ history ∙ favorites