Not what they wear, not who they live with, not what they eat, not what happens in the bedroom, not what they read, not how they do it, and not who they do it with.

Tags: Christians ∙ conservative ∙ religion ∙ Christianity ∙ maxims ∙ monotheism ∙ uniform rule of law ∙ neither help nor hinder ∙ freedom of religion ∙ live & let live

❝❝There is nothing that prevents people from following religious law. But there is nothing that demands others follow those same religious laws.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ cross posted ∙ Jews ∙ Christianity ∙ Buddhist ∙ faith ∙ Divine ∙ pagan garb ∙ Decalogue ∙ imposed ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ Story ∙ Journey ∙ pagan ∙ neopagans ∙ vodun ∙ blood sacrific ∙ sexual ∙ consent

❝❝Critics have also noted that much of the science doesn't hold up and that the ten year deadlines keep getting moved.

---

Pardon, but that is not true. It's a very small minority of critics have publicly claimed the science doesn't hold up. As for the "vast majority of the world's scientists," that's not true either.

This is one area where what little science there is has been buried under layers and layers of politics. It has become heresy to criticize the "conclusions." And the reactions to those who do ask questions are exactly like those historical reactions to those who questioned Islam or Christianity in a less enlightened age. We should be asking why it is necessary to crush dissent. We should also be asking if (notoriously unreliable) politicos are really on the side of Earth and Nature, or if they have their own agenda.

Then we get to the science which really isn't science. It's computer models built on a unproven assumptions, including a carbon dioxide cascade effect that has never been observed either in the laboratory or in the field. The models also minimize other known strong climate influences such as solar variations and atmospheric water, probably because those can't be blamed on human activity. But no, the science is settled and Must Not Be Questioned.

Those of us who follow Earth-centered paths want to believe that we are uniquely qualified to help. Part and parcel of that is the belief that we are uniquely qualified to hurt as well. While there are ecological problems that are human caused like pollution and water table damage and overharvesting the seas and rainforests, Nature adapts. If all humans disappeared tomorrow morning at 7:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, life would go on.

We need to find actual changes that make the World a little better. That doesn't include handing over massive funding and political power to politicos and technocrats who have no understanding of Nature and haven't the slightest idea how to solve the "problem."

---

As a rule, I don't think either/or solutions apply. It's not save the planet OR consume everything.

Are there solutions? Yes, and a lot of them are beyond our reach for now. When we get nanotech going (and we will), I expect one of the first large scale applications will be vat-grown exotic hardwoods that are virtually indistinguishable from the "real thing" other than cost and availability. Vat-grown stone will follow. Already vat-grown meat shows promise.
And that is just short to medium term.

We can make it better without the need for noble sacrifice.

We also need to address capitalistic solutions that may work. The American bison population is growing because some herds are privately owned and managed. There's evidence that works with African elephants as well. People take care of what they own.

---

"Eppur si muove."

This is public science we are talking about. Public science means telling the politicos what they want to hear. In living memory, public science has flip flopped on things like forest management, eugenics, recommended diet, humans have only five senses, and the role of sodium in human biology. When discussing public science, we should always ask "who profits?"

I focus on the political of climate science because unlike almost any other field of science, dissent is not allowed. It's not merely a matter of dismissing results, it's discrediting the researchers who don't toe the line.

For most of the 20th Century, we humans have treated Science as the new god. We forget we know much less than we think we know. We forget that science is a process and not an absolute. I just keep remembering a commercial I heard on an old-time radio recording. "Eight out of ten doctors recommend Lucky Strikes for their patients who smoke."

I'd probably ignore the whole mess except governments are demanding tremendous power to Act Now despite having no real solutions. And of course, it's too urgent for debate or to submit to public vote.

---

I am not anti-science.

I really don't want to turn this into a long debate on climate science or government power.

What I'd like is for people to ask more questions. Why the goalposts for action keep moving. Just what is supposed to be done and how much of an effect it should have. What will be done if the predictions fail to predict.

While Why neopagans of all people are treating this as an Absolute Revelation when we know that the World does things we don't expect.

Why we can't start with simple things like planting more trees.

I think asking these questions is important.

---

It's the political aspect that worries me. I won't kid you, the extreme climate change crowd are a major inspiration for what I call the True Believer™.

I think the science could work itself out, but partial conclusions and unproven techniques have been placed front and center of an agenda that has very little to do with saving the planet.

---

““The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.””

— H. L. Mencken

---

*shrugs*

Like I said, if it wasn't for the politician's rush to do something now, and incidentally completely remake every social structure and institution, I'd be content to sit this one out.

I've done more than a little research on this subject over the years. I've written about it quite a bit. I'm notorious in some circles for being the pagan that doesn't embrace the climate change panic.

But more and more I see this as political. It's not the scientists who are making the noise. It's not the scientists who are calling for massive financial and social changes. And it's not the scientists who want to punish "climate deniers."

---

I've no problem with bottom up changes providing better alternatives.

I've every problem with unquestioned top down solutions imposed by force.

I firmly believe that there are two phrases which have done more to shape humanity and human history than anything else.

The first is Let me help.

The second is I can do better than that!

---

Can you name another topic where "science" is defined by consensus rather than it's ability to predict?

---

Science isn't neutral. Science is a process. As a process, it shouldn't be treated as a conclusion.

The Brontosaurus was, wasn't, and then was again. Our perspective changed, our acceptance changed, but those old bones didn't.

No one is measuring the value of plate tectonics by how many people agree with it. Validity is measured by how well the theory explains observed phenomena and predicts what will happen.

Yet when it comes to climate change, there is always an overwhelming percentage of consent consensus cited, as if this measures validity.❞❞

Tags: climate change ∙ critics ∙ science ∙ islam ∙ Christianity ∙ heresy ∙ dissent ∙ politicos ∙ Earth ∙ Nature ∙ agenda ∙ computer models ∙ cascade effect ∙ science is settled ∙ Earth-centered religion ∙ adaptation ∙ either/or ∙ nanotech ∙ noble sacrifice ∙ capitalism ∙ government power ∙ true believers ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ consensus ∙ process ∙ Brontosaurus

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: Christianity ∙ individual ∙ people ∙ pagans ∙ atheist ∙ secret of life ∙ Satanists ∙ force ∙ coercive power ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ Christian ∙ Jewish ∙ cross posted ∙ rules ∙ laws ∙ Divine ∙ Decalogue ∙ Nature ∙ World ∙ humanity ∙ colony ∙ organism ∙ cooperation ∙ Chas S. Clifton ∙ label

❝❝Christianity, the Nation of Islam, atheism, Paganism, these are labels. Now people may use those labels as justifications for their actions, but it is not the label that is responsible. As a Pagan I'm not responsible for the actions of every Pagan out there. I'm responsible for my actions. Since I believe strongly that the measure of a man is in the lives he touches, I'll even accept some of the responsibility for the actions of the people I know and love. But someone I've never met? I can't be responsible for them, no matter what the label they choose. The label isn't responsible, the individuals are.❞❞

— NeoWayland, Redux: Christians & Pagan Tolerance

Tags: maxims ∙ Christianity ∙ Nation of Islam ∙ atheism ∙ paganism ∙ labels ∙ justification ∙ responsibility ∙ measure a man ∙ lives they touch ∙ know and love ∙ individual

That's the only thing we can really measure about each other.

Tags: monotheism ∙ sin ∙ Divine ∙ Jesus ∙ Christianity ∙ Christian ∙ afterlife ∙ secret of life

I'm not something less, I'm something else.

Tags: monotheism ∙ dualistic ∙ IS ∙ IS NOT ∙ GOOD ∙ NOT GOOD ∙ works ∙ rule ∙ different ∙ something less ∙ something else ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ traditional values

❝❝Okay, time number three. We've been through this twice before.

For something with no moral relativism, there's an awful lot or relative morality going on. Of course there's the Catholic Church mess going on in Pittsburg right now. Granted, that was priests breaking the laws of "God" and man. But there are plenty of other examples.

Child labor used to be not only allowed, but justified by people quoting the Bible. Women were denied property rights and the right to vote. Slavery was justified and encouraged before some good people decided that not only was it wrong but it should be abolished.

You cite the Decalogue, but number one on that list denies any other religion or faith system. Using that, at best non-Christians (okay, non-Abrahamics) exist only at the sufferance of their "betters," to be indulged as children and tolerated for their misunderstanding.

If there is one thing I wish I could literally pound into Christian heads, it's this: Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society. Other cultures and other faiths have contributed heavily. It's amazing that I even have to mention this where one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial fasces. Syncretism happens and we're better for it.

We're not measured by our faith, but how we treat others. There is this urge particularly among evangelical Christians to meddle in the lives of others. You yourself cite "the" Native American experience. It wasn't "the," different tribes and groups were treated differently. Usually that led to stealing land, women, and children. Not to mention Indian wars, relocation, and reservations. How is that higher morality? Yet the American treatment of "Indians" was usually justified by Bible quotes.

I could go on and on but I won't. The vice or virtue is in the individual, not the label. By pagan lights, monotheisms have their own sins which they seldom answer for.

Yet there is hope. The "Golden Rule" is the true keystone of Western civilization. It exists in many faiths and cultures. Arguably it is core of the best ethical civilizations. Applied correctly, it can do everything that your Judeo-Christian values can. And we won't be arguing over whose morality should be "in charge."❞❞

Tags: Bookworm ∙ monotheism ∙ Christianity ∙ Decalogue ∙ Catholic Church ∙ child labor ∙ women ∙ rights ∙ Amerindians ∙ non-Christian ∙ good ∙ righteous ∙ Golden Rule ∙ cross posted

❝❝WH, you are way off base with your opinion about Islam having no Constitution protections. Religion is between you and the Divine and no one else.

That being said, *ahem*





It may be a religion, but if it relies on force, any and all opposition is justified. And if someone chooses to walk away, that's their right.

If your religion depends on force, you're doing it wrong.

---

That's not your place to decide. And Story was wrong.

If you start excluding religions from protection, sooner or later someone else is going to exclude yours. No other nation has America's pluralism. It's what threatens all monotheistic Islam. Religious choice is exactly that, choice,

On the other hand, we must insist on an even playing ground. Islam gets no special treatment and no special protections.

I'd be perfectly happy seeing a law that required anyone, regardless of faith, who participated in an honor killing or female genital mutilation to be executed, wrapped in pigskin, boiled with pig dung, and buried under a pig farm. Of course, the pigs might object…

---

Religion is a hot button topic for me, if for no other reason than I have had Christians use theirs against me, and tell me in no uncertain terms that any religion except Christianity should not be allowed. I'm related to some of those people.

Story himself specifically excluded Judaism. Which is interesting considering (among other things) the history of the Newport, Rhode Island Hebrew Congregation.

Here's what both you and Story are completely overlooking. The English Civil War was relatively recent. No proto-American wanted another church telling their church what to do. But that is minor. No, the big thing is that for the very first time (that we know of) in the history of Western Civilization, the defining document did not say that government power derived from the Divine. Except for the date, there is no mention of any god in the Constitution.

The SCT made a mistake with the Mormon ruling. It wouldn't be the first or last time that the Court goofed. Kelo v. New London comes to mind, as does Pace v. Alabama. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriage, and certainly nothing that gives it authority over religion. Under the Tenth (and yes, I know politicos love to ignore the Tenth), that means the no power, period.

Most importantly, there were many things that did not exist in 1791. Radio, automobiles, telegraph, and baseball come to mind. There were many things that were unknown in 1791. No American had seen the Mariana Trench, the Grand Canyon, Mount McKinley, or a coyote.

---

Story was commenting well after the fact, he was not a signatory to either the DOI or Constitution. The fact that he excluded Judaism reflects on him and not the Founders. Jews may have been a minority faith, but they were a well established faith.

Using law to force the rules of your religion was wrong then and it is wrong now. I'm sure you'd object if Muslim prayer calls were enforced in American law, or if Kosher dietary restrictions were part of the legal system. Almost all of the mala prohibita laws have a religious basis. It's no secret that I believe most of the problems in American society are because of too much government and mala prohibita laws. If your religion says no shopping on Sunday or no selling liquor, that's up to you. Using the law to restrict other's choices based on your religion, well, that doesn't say much for your faith.

Start respecting the "commonalities of Christianity" and you're going to fast approach respecting the commonalities of faith. The Ethic of Reciprocity or "Golden Rule" is the keystone of Western Civilization. It is arguably the single most important and universal basis for human advancement and is the basis for all true liberty. But it did not begin with Judaism or Christianity.

Once you eliminate specific mentions of any god, pluralism between sects pretty much leads to pluralism between religions. It may have been an accident. I suspect some of those Deists took a hand, or pen as it were.

I can't stress that enough. That simple idea takes religion and religious choice out of the public sphere and puts it back into individual behavior where it belongs. The teachings of a faith should matter only to the individual, not to the state. I don't want a Congresscritter demanding that I observe the Christian sabbath, any more than you want another Congresscritter demanding that you participate in ritual sex with same sex partners under the next full moon. And no, I don't do that.

Because that sets up the next bit. Radical Islam demands that the state require and prohibit according to the interpretation of the imams. The state becomes an extension of Islam. There is no provision for other faiths except in very subservient ways. The state becomes religion.

The ideas of liberty expressed in the Constitution reflect the universal ideals well beyond "Judeo-Christianity." Parts of it originated with the ancient Greeks and the Roman Republic as you've pointed out. It's a good idea because it works and not because of it's origins.

When the Founders wanted to limit freedom, be it slavery, restricting the vote to male landowners, or originally not enumerating human rights, it was wrong and it failed miserably. There was no way the Founders could foresee what would follow. We celebrate the universality, the protection of liberty from government and those who would abuse government power.

❝We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.❞

---

It's not your place to decide if you require others to sacrifice their freedom for yours. And as a citizen of this country, that's something I will defend fight against.

Constitutional America was not founded as a Christian nation. Nations are not Christian, individuals are. Yes, even the nations with established churches. Just as one very obvious example, nations can't participate in the Christian rite of communion. If a "Christian nation" goes to war, does that mean that Jeshua ben Joseph signed the marching orders?

Story may have been closer chronologically, but that doesn't mean he was right. I've already told you the biggest piece of evidence. The Constitution clearly states that political power comes from the people and not the Divine. This was unheard of, as far as we know it had never happened before.

Protecting rights means protecting people from the whims of the majority. You don't stop having freedom of speech because your city voted for "free speech" zones.

As I explained to WH above, radical Islam means that the state becomes an extension of Islam. Pluralism is pretty much the only thing that can resist that and not become tyranny.

Radical Islam is depending on special privileges and protections not granted to others. They can't do it on a level playing field.

Since the practices I mentioned are exclusive to the more radical versions of Islam, then the rest of us don't have to fear that punishment, do we?

---

Story was still wrong on this. Veritas. No one person, no one group has all the answers. I distrust anyone who says that they do. I refer back to the source document. The Constitution remains one of the clearest pieces of English ever put to paper. There are reasons why the Founders, some of the best educated people of their time, deliberately chose not to include the Christian Deity in the Constitution. It's not because of their faith. It's not because they were not pious. It's because they didn't trust men when they claimed to speak for the Divine.

❝Religion can not be allowed the coercive power of the state and the state can not be allowed the moral justification of faith.❞ That's one of mine.

I'm not advocating paganism and especially not my version. I am saying that your religion does not govern my behavior. Just as mine does not govern yours.

Our nation was founded on principles that transcended Christianity. Some of them predate Christianity. The Founders were wise enough to know that they didn't know everything. The Enlightenment thinkers did not spontaneously create their philosophy, they drew heavily on history. There's no need to label these ideas as Christian or Hottentotten, it's enough that some very wise men found ways to pass along truths that worked. Civilization rises from wisdom after disaster. You're arguing over the labels so "your side" can take credit. Yes, Christian people (as opposed to Christianity) have done some wonderful things. And Christians have done some terrible things with huge costs to humanity. ❝The vice or virtue is not in the label, it's in the individual.❞ Labels borrow merit, although they do get blamed.

I didn't say the EoR was universal, I said it was the keystone of Western Civilization. Our best law and principles rest on the simple idea that we're fair to others because we expect them to be fair to us.

I've said it before, ❝Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society.❞ Christians are better and nicer when they aren't the only game around. “One path among many” means Christians usually pay attention to what others say. It means Christians have to defend what they say and do without hiding behind scripture or a "higher truth."

Our law should not be defined in terms of A religion. Certainly not if everyone doesn't share that religion.

We should celebrate the ideas, not the labels.❞❞

Tags: faith ∙ religion ∙ Constitution ∙ force ∙ force of law ∙ Joseph Story ∙ Founders ∙ Christianity ∙ islam ∙ Christians ∙ pluralism ∙ Judaism ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ English Civil War ∙ Western Civilization ∙ Divine ∙ Supreme Court ∙ Kelo v. New London ∙ Pace v. Alabama ∙ marriage ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Muslim prayer calls ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ public sphere ∙ individual ∙ behavior ∙ kosher

In the interest of fairness, I am linking to a response. Obviously I don't agree with the response or I would feature it here. Here is another response I don't agree with.

First, I don't care about the technicalities or the numbers. Group identity politics are still about group identity. The average conservative is more likely to treat people mostly as individuals than the alt-right.

Second, there is one race and it is human.

Third, I don't care "what the other guy does." If you are raising your particular group above all others, then I'm not interested.

Fourth, you can spot all the Christian rhetoric you want. I'm more interested in how you touch other people. That's how I'm going to judge what is a "true Christian." Even if I am pagan, I've spent time studying Christianity for all it's flaws. Deeds, not words.

Tags: alt-right ∙ alt-left ∙ group identity politics ∙ human race ∙ video ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ deeds ∙ words

❝❝Pardon, I don't think anyone is capable of judging what is and is not a "real" religion. I can't tell you how many times certain Christians have told me that my faith isn't real.

Pauline Christianity is something completely different that what Yeshua Ben Yosef preached. Gnostic Christianity is something completely different yet again. Which is true? Who knows? Who am I to judge what happens between someone else and the Divine?

I think these are the wrong questions. Christians are much nicer when they aren't the only game around. From what little I've seen, the same applies to Muslims.

I think what matters is how we treat others, especially others who do not share our faith and culture. Ramming it down other's throat by force will cause resentment. That's where some monotheists go wrong. It's not that they have the True Faith™, its that no other faith can be allowed. Because of their Greater Understanding and enlightenment, they can break society's rule for the Greater Good. Thou shalt not dissent.

Climate change alarmists stole the game lock, stock, and barrel. It's common for some of the radical feminists too. If anything, I think it indicates a weakness in the argument. Their faith isn't strong enough, they can't convince others, so it must be forced.

Getting back to Christianity, how much would history have changed if Constantine hadn't made it the state faith? How would it have developed if it had stayed one faith among many? How much of the Official® was really about politics and controlling the populace?

Could it be that control is really the issue?❞❞

Tags: cross posted ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ Christian bash ∙ Gnostic Christianity ∙ Constantine ∙ Muslims ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ enlightenment ∙ radical feminists ∙ climate change alarmists ∙ Yeshua Ben Yosef ∙ Pauline Christianity

Older headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: religion ∙ Christianity ∙ voter fraud ∙ RussiaGate ∙ climate change ∙ skeptics ∙ Maine ∙ FedGovs ∙ regulation ∙ nullifying ∙ advertising ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Red Cross ∙ Hurricane Irma ∙ Florida ∙ Amazon ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Fourth Amendment ∙ cops ∙ iPhone ∙ Amazon ∙ patent ∙ Silicon Valley ∙ technology ∙ goverment ∙ nun ∙ economic freedom ∙ Democrats ∙ State Department ∙ Benghazi ∙ UC Berkeley ∙ California ∙ Antifa ∙ violence ∙ hexes ∙ Google

❝❝I would like to point out that there were vital and influential cultures that existed before Christianity. Syncretism happens.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Christianity ∙ syncretism

❝❝I'm just saying that if a Christian complains because Christianity is being mocked or attacked, insulting another faith is deluded at best. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Or if you prefer, the Golden Rule. Or that bit about casting stones…❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Golden Rule ∙ casting stones

❝❝Ah, somebody finally said the C word. And that means I can say not all Christians.

I can say something else too. For all of the evidence of Christian bigotry, there's tolerance and pluralism right there beside it. America is the probably the only nation where it could happen. Religious diversity made it happen. And it goes right back to the Civil War. While there were plenty saying (with reason) that the Bible justified slavery, there were others making the case that a human was a human no matter what the color skin. The ones fighting hardest against slavery took their best arguments from their faith. That continued through the woman's rights movement, through the civil rights movement, and on through the gay rights movement. Without Christians speaking and fighting, those movements would have stalled.

As a newbie back in the 80s, I had a lot of baggage. I spoke and wrote against Christians with the best of them. Some of my stuff is probably still floating around there. But I discovered that I didn't like who I was. There were other things too, I was not a nice person. After some serious soul searching and couple of Divine thumps on the head, I came back to a very simple idea. In magickal terms, the energy you put out is the energy you get back. It's the Ethic of Reciprocity, Christians call it the Golden Rule. It's probably the cornerstone of Western civilization. Long story short, if you look for the negative in others, that is precisely what you will find. And that is precisely what you will allow to shape your own life.

But if you look for the positive, "catch them doing right," there will be enough good to overcome the bad.

Christians made marriage legal in the first place. But do you honestly think there would be legal gay marriage without a whole lot of Christians saying, wait, we have to fix this to be fair to everyone.

Because not every Christian, you see. Sometimes in the places you least expect and from the people you'd never consider, there is tolerance and acceptance and even encouragement. Not everyone wraps themselves in the fire and brimstone of the OT. Some really do believe that their god is love.

We need those people badly.

So, not every Christian.❞❞

Tags: Christian ∙ Christians ∙ Christianity ∙ bigotry ∙ tolerance ∙ pluralism ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Western Civilization ∙ cross posted

❝❝Exclusivity is not the core of Christianity. How Christians live their life is. That shows in how they touch the lives of others.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ maxims

❝❝Christians are a lot nicer to be around when everyone else doesn't have to defer to them. “One path among many” means Christians usually pay attention to what others say. It means Christians have to defend what they say and do without hiding behind scripture.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Christians ∙ Christianity ∙ one among many ∙ scripture

❝❝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

I don't think religion belongs in the public schools. Public schools are compulsory, students can't walk away if they do not agree.

Tags: faith ∙ path ∙ public schools ∙ compulsory ∙ Christianity

❝❝If there is one thing I wish I could literally pound into Christian heads, it's this: Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society. Other cultures and other faiths have contributed heavily. It's amazing that I even have to mention this where one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial fasces. Even The Magnificent Seven was a remake.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ culture ∙ good ∙ righteous ∙ faiths ∙ Senate ∙ ceremonial ∙ fasces ∙ The Magnificent Seven ∙ remake

Our heroes are defined by what they have done and how they inspire us.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ Robert A. Heinlein ∙ Lawrence W. Reed ∙ certainty ∙ perfection ∙ government ∙ promises ∙ good intentions ∙ price distortions ∙ prudent person ∙ Congress ∙ new regulations ∙ second order consequences ∙ third order consequences ∙ feedback loop ∙ politicos ∙ loan game ∙ free money ∙ something for nothing ∙ Second Amendment ∙ neither help nor hinder ∙ Christians ∙ outsourced wages ∙ industrial nations ∙ free to choose ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Constitution ∙ E pluribus unum ∙ one from many ∙ united we stand ∙ codified law ∙ public morality ∙ religious system ∙ The Moral Authority ∙ personal morality, ∙ multiple faiths

❝❝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

George Soros is one of the most dangerous men alive.

Tags: George Soros ∙ conspiracy ∙ for your own good ∙ Hebrew faith ∙ the Adversary ∙ Tester of Faith ∙ Christianity ∙ freedom of choice ∙ choice & consequence ∙ free market ∙ commerce ∙ voluntary economic transactions between consenting adults

❝❝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

❝❝Freedom of religion does not mean deferring to Christianity.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ Christianity

Another classic that I've used in the sidebar for years.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ reform ∙ politicos ∙ government ∙ other guy ∙ collapse ∙ not our fault ∙ system ∙ Sara Palin ∙ John McCain ∙ Star Parker ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ for your own good ∙ vice law ∙ Tammy Bruce ∙ Chris Matthews ∙ government screw-up ∙ submit ∙ conservative ∙ virtues ∙ libertarianism ∙ Constitution ∙ rights ∙ taxes ∙ Daniel Webster ∙ Frederick Douglass ∙ rulers&masters

“The Bad Manners of the Campus Left”

Tags: Murray Pura ∙ Christianity ∙ tyranny

It's not what you think it is

Tags: video ∙ Adam Ruins Everything ∙ guest content ∙ Christmas ∙ Christianity

Christians are nicer people when they aren't the only game in town

Tags: PragerU ∙ Christianity ∙ Christmas ∙ Yuletide ∙ Midsummer ∙ Midwinter ∙ Easter ∙ Christians

I've every reason to fight religious discrimination.

Tags: Christianity ∙ discriminate ∙ human rights ∙ homosexual rights ∙ Muslim rights ∙ pagan rights

I suspect that sexual orientation is not as hard wiblurb as some believe, but that is still individual choice.

Tags: shaming ∙ groups ∙ Christianity ∙ priests ∙ generals ∙ emperors ∙ justification ∙ religion ∙ property ∙ wealth ∙ power ∙ poverty ∙ unemployment ∙ Pagan ∙ victimhood ∙ Utah ∙ Navajo Nation ∙ Mexico ∙ racism

Most of the problems caused by illegal drugs come from the drugs being illegal in the first place.

Tags: sex ∙ consenting adults ∙ sexual orientation ∙ alternative sexualities ∙ Christianity ∙ conservatism ∙ libertarianism ∙ paganism ∙ underwater basket weaving ∙ choice & consequence ∙ sexual norm

I don't agree with everything here, but you should definitely watch.

Tags: Christianity ∙ atheist ∙ agnostic ∙ Hindu ∙ Buddhist ∙ Baptist ∙ Catholic ∙ Mormon ∙ individual ∙ Divine ∙ sin ∙ religion ∙ Higher Truth™

I believe in people and not government.

Tags: Christianity ∙ feminism ∙ leather ∙ Dianic witchcraft ∙ RSM

❝❝Pardon, but that’s not necessarily true. Aside from the obvious “Might makes right,” it’s also possible to build a moral system based on the Ethic of Reciprocity.

---

I'd argue that in peacetime, there are very few times that reciprocity doesn't apply, at least in the long term. You want to screw with the people around you, they will remember and be less likely to deal with you in the future. (There was a great Bill Whittle essay on this that I used to point people at, but it's not online anymore).

❝What is the origin of those rules?❞

That is a great question. The practical part of me would ask does it matter as long as the rules work?

---

Not just Christianity.

❝In our opinion, the greatest failure of many organized religions is their historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers like themselves. It is our group's belief that religions should stress that their members also use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, other genders, other cultures, other sexual orientations, other gender identities, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.

Crimes against humanity require that the victims first be viewed as subhuman and the as not worthy of life. If the Ethic of Reciprocity is applied to all humans, then no person or group of persons can be seen in this way.❞

---

The whole point of that quote was that many organized religions use an ethic of reciprocity but do not extend their definition of people to members of other religions. In other words, the "elect" have privileges (and implied Wisdom™) that "mere unbelievers" do not.

Reread the quote.

We have one race and that's human. If it's really about reciprocity, we're obligated to recognize the worth of others.

---

And if someone doesn't believe in your eternal judge, don't you face the exact same questions?

It's not my place to say if your God exists or if He may judge you or indeed if He cares what color shirt you will wear next Saturday. That's between you and Him.

Likewise, it's not your place to say the same thing about my gods.

Which means the only things we have to build a society and culture on are the things we have in common. If that's not going to be a shared belief in a specific aspect of Divinity, what's left?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Or my preferred version "Be excellent to each other. And party on, Dudes!"

---

❝I'm asking about how, absent a transcendent signifier, anything means anything.❞

I can't answer that for you. I don't believe anyone can answer that for another person.

If you believe, there's no doubt that will shape your thoughts and actions. If you believe in a different Divine aspect, that will shape your thoughts and actions differently. If you don't believe, your actions will still be shaped by belief.

It's a question of faith. We may not share faith. Does that mean we can't share a culture or a society?

---

I was updating one of my blogs and I ran across an entry from this site that I made. I thought it was good so I quoted it on my site a few weeks back. The line also applies here.

❝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.❞

---

I think the mark of an adult is the ability to make the right choice without the threat of punishment. Or perhaps despite it.

We know that's possible. Under the right circumstances, we even revere the people who did that as saints and heroes.

---

One may also choose to honor it, cherish it, and nourish it.

It's a matter of choice.

So tell me, is morality stronger when one chooses it? Or is it stronger when one holds a gun to another's head and says "Do as I say or else!!!"

Isn't morality really about making a choice?

If it's made under duress, doesn't it cease to be moral?

If morality is really a choice, then people will make choices you do not like. The next question is what do you intend to do about them?

---

I'm not an atheist.

Again, if it's a choice made under duress, is it really moral?

If morality can only exist by force, what's the point?

---

I can see your point, if the rules are transcendent, then they are universal.

But if that guy over there doesn't believe the rules are transcendent, then for him they won't be. That's true regardless.

And then you get into the arguments over which particular Deity wrote the rules and what the "civilized people" are going to do with those folks who do not believe.

That's an incredibly dangerous path to take.

---

One thing I've learned is that when it comes to enforcing morality, it's almost never a god that does it. It's people who claim to to speak for the Divine.

Inevitably, that leads to arguments over which god is in charge. Funny how that leads to political power for a certain priesthood.

Religion is not the reason, it's the justification.

---

I disagree. I think the core of civilization is cooperation, not force. Positive not punishment.

Although I differ from most libertarians when it comes to the Zero Aggression Principle, I believe that relying on force alone will create disaster.

Is morality transcendent or man-made? That's ultimately unanswerable on anything except a personal level. Practically, it only matters if I can trust you and you can trust me.

---

A couple of years ago I asked on this site if someone could be a "good" man if they weren't Christian.

I don't think force is a foundation of civilization.

What do I base trust on? Past behavior if I have a history with you. The chance to make things a little better today if I don't.

It's an act of faith. *grins*

You know, we’ve had this discussion before. Somehow, I don’t think either of us has changed our views since then.

---

Hah! I found it. I misremembered what I wrote. Perhaps the question bears repeating here.

Is the only source of accepted morality Christian?

---

I'm talking about honoring, cherishing and nourishing a moral philosophy. There's not much subjective about it.

If I don't want to be killed, I shouldn't kill others.

If I don't want to be hurt, I should not hurt others.

If I want nice stuff, I shouldn't take or damage other people's stuff.

The best way I can protect myself is to stand up for others when I can.

This isn't because of some priest hiding behind a sacred text. This is because I live in the World with other people.

---

I agree with you.

My grandfather's funeral taught me that the measure of a man was how he touched the lives of others.

As a person of faith myself, I believe in the Divine and I do devotions. I believe that reaching beyond ourselves is how we become better and make our world better. It's the Manifestation.

I just don't think that's the only choice.❞ class="ghoster">❞

❝❝

Tags: Golden Rule ∙ duress ∙ force ∙ ethic of reciprocity ∙ might makes right ∙ commenting ∙ common ground ∙ morality ∙ moral justification ∙ moral ∙ practical ∙ reciprocity ∙ Christianity ∙ the Elect ∙ implied Wisdom™ ∙ mere unbelievers ∙ worth of others ∙ religion ∙ law of the land ∙ politicos ∙ choice & consequence ∙ choice ∙ atheist ∙ cooperation ∙ positive not punishment ∙ person of faith

Comments

❝❝First, not all feminists. And not all lesbians.

Now with that out of the way, these particular females (I will not dignify them as ladies) do have a big problem.

It's all about the guilt. If the guys don't feel guilt, there is no way these females will get their way. I for one am tired of it. I've been lectured to about the need for keeping silent when the RadFems are speaking. I've been lectured for pointing out that environmentalism makes no sense while ecology does. I've been lectured for saying #AllLivesMatter. And I have been lectured to when I refused to change my lifestyle because it is not acceptable to feminism.

KYFHO.

I make the same stand against them that I make against some of the conservative Christians. My life is my own. My choices are my own. My responsibility is my own.

---

Unfortunately, that's not enough for some conservative Christians.

They want to meddle. For the greater good, of course.

And that means taking lives and responsibility away from other people.

---

If you bother to read my comments, you'll find I don't try to hide what I am saying. After all, I am a pagan libertarian posting openly on a conservative mostly Christian board.

If you had asked me about the "culture wars," I'd tell you that war is the wrong way to think about it. War is backed by force. If you can't convince someone that your way is right without resorting to force, you're doing it wrong.

What you believe isn't important to me. Your freedom to choose what to believe, that is vital. That is what I will defend.❞ class="ghoster">❞

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

❝❝Your issue with me isn't about what I say. It's that I don't recognize Christianity as the "obviously superior" choice. It's that I won't give Christianity the hand up you think it deserves. It's that I don't think Christianity is the "universal" choice.

Am I attacking you? No. Am I attacking Christianity? No. Am I suppressing Christianity? No.

If Christianity is what you believe, then it should be able to hold it's own AND MORE against any other set of ideas with no special advantage.

Which means there’s no need to explain human behavior because of Divine intervention or devilish activity.

It’s choice.❞❞

Tags: Christianity ∙ commenting ∙ Divine intervention ∙ devilish activity ∙ choice & consequence ∙ maxims

❝❝We are a nation of individuals, of individual liberty and responsibilities, of individual choice and individual passion. We're the first nation like that in recorded history, it is our legacy.

Our faiths, like Christianity, are a part of that.

Please think about this. You may believe that your God makes the sun rise, but your faith doesn't control my actions. Likewise, my faith doesn't control you.

We have to find common ground outside religion. Otherwise it's a matter of whose religion is "in charge," and that way will destroy liberty.❞❞

Tags: personal freedom ∙ commenting ∙ personal responsiblity ∙ personal choice ∙ passion ∙ Christianity ∙ common ground ∙ liberty

❝❝Anytime someone starts talking about a Christian theocracy, I ask "Which one?"

Besides the obvious differences between Catholics and Protestants, there are differences between the sects. There's no way a Baptist is going to take religious marching orders from a Mormon. The Methodists won't accept directions from the Christian Scientists.

This predates the country. Back in the colonial days, no one wanted a church in one colony dictating religious practices in another. This is partially why there was no national church defined in the Constitution and why the only mention of any god in that document was the date.

The best way to make sure that you're allowed to practice your religion in peace is to make sure EVERYONE has that same right.❞ class="ghoster">❞

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

Tags: Christianity ∙ Catholic ∙ Protestant ∙ Baptist ∙ commenting ∙ Methodist ∙ Christian Scientist ∙ rights

Why does Cruz assume that the only worthy values are Christian ones?

Tags: Christianity ∙ religion ∙ public square ∙ moral justification ∙ common ground ∙ coercive power ∙ worthy values ∙ marriage ∙ religious freedom ∙ Biblical values ∙ liberty

This is from an email exchange I had recently.

Tags: Christianity ∙ Pagan ∙ religious freedom ∙ commenting ∙ tain't mine

I wouldn’t want people to think I was hiding something.

Tags: Christianity

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

I do criticize the Christians who constantly take refuge in that tired phrase “Judeo-Christian heritage.”

Tags: Christianity ∙ Judeo-Christian heritage ∙ Pledge of Allegiance ∙ blessings

❝❝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

Expanding civilizations, religions, and faith

Except for a few central issues, I really try not to tread on people's beliefs. I don't have time for one thing.

But every once in a while, something comes up that is just too silly.

David Warren was writing about the Gulf oil mess and rules and regulations. He made some great points about the limits of government ability. But then he tossed in this tidbit.

❝❝I like to dwell on the wisdom of our ancestors. It took us millennia to emerge from the primitive notion that a malignant agency must lie behind every unfortunate experience. Indeed, the Catholic Church spent centuries fighting folk pagan beliefs in things like evil fairies, and the whole notion the Devil can compel any person to act against his will -- only to watch an explosion of witch-hunting and related popular hysterias at the time of the Reformation.

In so many ways, the trend of post-Christian society today is back to pagan superstitions: to the belief that malice lies behind every misfortune, and to the related idea that various, essentially pagan charms can be used to ward off that to which all flesh is heir. The belief that, for instance, laws can be passed, that change the entire order of nature, is among the most irrational of these.❞❞

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the "triumph" of Christianity actually cost European civilization science, wealth, and much of what made life good.

This has nothing to do with the merits of Paganism or the faults of Christianity.

That's important. Read it again.

And yes, I know that paganism wasn't Paganism as we recognize it today. That's not the point. Nor is it important which had better beliefs or more superstitions.

It's one of my working theories. Cultures and civilizations expand when they have trade, immigration, and tolerance. Without trade, immigration, and tolerance, cultures contract and become more insular.

It's a generally accepted flexibility of thought that makes trade, immigration, and tolerance possible. The more trade, immigration, and tolerance there is, the more vibrant and interesting the culture becomes. You never know what will cross pollinate or what will take root where.

Thanks to Constantine, Christianity went from several competing groups to one ruled by a Church and an Emperor. Dissent was ruthlessly suppressed. Variations from the cultural norms were destroyed. This isn't inherent in Christianity, but it was inherent in the Christian belief system that the Council of Nicea propagated.

Believe me, there are forms of paganism that are just as intolerant. And oddly enough, those also retreated into themselves.

How we treat the Other may well be the defining characteristic of a great human civilization.

And then we get Stephen Hawking. Yes, that Stephen Hawking.

❝❝There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.❞❞

Two tiny little problems there. Religion does work for many people, but not necessarily because of authority. Faith works for many more, and not necessarily because of authority.

And the other problem. Well, it's hardly worth mentioning, but science is the bastard child of magick.

Oops! I revealed an untold truth!!

Religion, faith, and the desire to control or at least predict the universe led to science. In many ways, they still intertwine.

Just something for you to think about on this Wednesday.

Posted: Wed - June 9, 2010 at 02:02 PM  Morality & Modern Life

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ too silly ∙ Gulf oil mess ∙ trade-immigration-tolerance ∙ culture ∙ Constantine ∙ Christianity ∙ Pagan ∙ The Other ∙ Stephen Hawking ∙ religion ∙ authority ∙ bastard child of magick ∙ science

Comments

Certain fundamentalists trot out the scare tactics again

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ classic ∙ ritual crime ∙ approved faiths ∙ skimmed ∙ Christianity ∙ rItual occult symbols ∙ crime ∙ poseur ∙ sexual predator

Bookworm is looking for scapegoats

Tags: personal freedom ∙ commenting ∙ personal responsiblity ∙ Bookworm ∙ Christianity ∙ parity test ∙ progressive ∙ goal is freedom ∙ modern liberal ∙ freely chosen

I do dissent

Tags: personal freedom ∙ forbidden ∙ human rights ∙ Christianity

I think that most people make mostly good choices.

Mostly.

Tags: Julian ∙ Constantine ∙ Christianity ∙ truth ∙ practical ∙ freely chosen

I told people that Christianity didn’t mean much unless you were a Christian. It might even drive people away from a good cause.

Tags: Christianity ∙ true believers

Cashing in on people's fear

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ speech wars ∙ E pluribus unum ∙ religion ∙ personal responsiblity ∙ Romney ∙ Christianity ∙ mala in se ∙ parity test ∙ freely chosen ∙ mala prohibita ∙ coercive power ∙ moral justification ∙ person of faith ∙ Barry Goldwater ∙ favorites

Some people are deliberately confusing the issues to advance their beliefs

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ Pagan ∙ Christianity ∙ religion ∙ person of faith ∙ Christians

What does the call for a "progressive judge" on the United States Supreme Court really mean?

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ classic ∙ Lensman ∙ Robert A. Heinlein ∙ Ronny Ray Gun ∙ Pax Americana ∙ favorites ∙ Margaret Thatcher ∙ John Paul II ∙ libertarian ∙ Christianity ∙ Isaac Bonewits

Does religion really define public morality? Should government control religion?

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ religion ∙ Christianity ∙ Founders ∙ classic ∙ favorites

My take on true believers of all stripes.

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ religion ∙ favorites ∙ Christianity ∙ Pagan ∙ classic ∙ freely chosen ∙ Founders ∙ personal choice ∙ reciprocity

And here is where I am about to offend many of you. Are you paying close attention?

Tags: Crux Files ∙ Christianity ∙ Founders ∙ religion ∙ First Amendment ∙ personal freedom ∙ coercive power ∙ moral justification ∙ personal responsiblity ∙ E pluribus unum