Then I choose not to follow a Biblical morality.

Tags: Biblical morality ∙ Old Testament ∙ Decalogue ∙ Christians ∙ Jews ∙ New Testament ∙ Jesus ∙ John ∙ costs ∙ benefits ∙ submit ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ government ∙ moral justification ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ Biblical authority

❝❝We don't agree with each other, not entirely. Just because someone is religious doesn't automatically mean that they are defective. If nothing else, that faith gives them a different perspective. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, more or less, just different. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not. It depends on the individual and circumstances.

Religion is bad is just as big a trap as science is good. There was an author named Isaac Bonewits who wrote on the limitations of dualism. Either/or thinking can trap you. One example is that if something is ACCEPTABLE than everything else is NOT ACCEPTABLE. It becomes easier to define what doesn't work for you as not fitting your worldview instead on it's own characteristics. If all you are looking for is WHITE, than anything else including fuzzy pink becomes NOT WHITE. I'm sure you'll agree that while black and fuzzy pink are NOT WHITE, neither are they the same thing. And we still haven't touched on semi-sweet.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ religious ∙ defect ∙ faith ∙ perspective ∙ right ∙ wrong ∙ religion ∙ science ∙ Isaac Bonewits ∙ dualism

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

❝❝People are looking for something, and some of them are not finding it in churches. Some are, but there never was a one-size-fits-all solution. Competition keeps us honest. It works for peanut butter, smart phones, and politics.

And it most certainly works for religion.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments from Pagan Community News: Twin Cities man charged with child exploitation, SCOTUS decision, and more!

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ competition ∙ honest

❝❝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

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

““There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'””

— Barry Goldwater, September 16, 1981

Tags: Barry Goldwater ∙ 1981 ∙ religion ∙ religious factions

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: New York ∙ police misconduct ∙ inauguration ∙ radical ∙ CBS ∙ #MeToo ∙ Eliza Dushku ∙ sexual conduct ∙ campus ∙ reason ∙ religion ∙ deep ecology ∙ doctrine ∙ Instagram ∙ social media ∙ Democrats ∙ pork barrel ∙ earmarks ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ Middle East ∙ Russia ∙ DoJ ∙ Peter Strzok ∙ Lisa Page ∙ San Francisco ∙ expensive ∙ restaurant ∙ Congress ∙ sexual harassment ∙ organic farming ∙ climate

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Boy Scouts ∙ Uber ∙ Ivy League ∙ liberals ∙ conservatives ∙ patronize ∙ minorities ∙ text messages ∙ tax ∙ California ∙ yellow vest ∙ corruption ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ Chuck Schumer ∙ Oval Office ∙ green new deal ∙ Capital Hill ∙ IPCC ∙ Poland ∙ climate change alarmists ∙ Jamieson Webster ∙ anxieties ∙ religion ∙ record public officials ∙ media ∙ military spending ∙ Project Veritas ∙ EPA ∙ environment ∙ activists ∙ Ted Lieu ∙ First Amendment ∙ Venezuela ∙ Citgo

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

❝❝Some monotheists think that their religion belongs on top and take offense when you disagree.❞❞

 — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ monotheism ∙ religion ∙ disagree ∙ cross posted

This is the problem.

Tags: Shawn Herles ∙ World ∙ us vs them ∙ division ∙ dehumanizes ∙ Christian ∙ Druids ∙ Satanists ∙ religious justifications ∙ dualistic ∙ good ∙ evil ∙ religion ∙ cross posted

Religions are created by people claiming to speak for the Divine.

Tags: religion ∙ Divine ∙ universal rules ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ E. E. Smith ∙ freely chosen ∙ invisible overlord ∙ responsibility ∙ secret of life

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ children ∙ demonic realms ∙ faith

❝❝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.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ faith ∙ religion ∙ enshrined ∙ choice ∙ sacrifice ∙ govern

Samuel Adams delivered this speech from the steps of the State House in Philadelphia on August 1, 1776. This was the day before the famous parchment copy of the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Tags: Samuel Adams ∙ 1776 ∙ forefathers ∙ religion ∙ England ∙ America ∙ France ∙ Great Britain ∙ government ∙ Declaration of Independence

❝❝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

This is a page from the original version of Pagan Vigil. There are some formatting differences. Originally published at www.paganvigil.com/C49491493/E20070715134558

An argument against gun control has much wider application than I realized

I had some friends over on Friday and dug out my DVD of Sergeant York for a movie and ice cream. Great film, some very nuanced performances there. Hardly anyone believes me when I tell them that Margaret Wycherly who plays Mother York was a classically trained stage actress.

Anyway, the film sparked a discussion on gun control. I dragged out standard libertarian argument 3B. "The people who pay attention to gun laws are not the ones you should be worried about."

Later battling insomnia sipping hot grapefruit juice (don't knock it till you have tried it), it occurred to me that was probably THE standard libertarian argument, not just against gun control but against almost every bad law.

Illegal drugs? "The people who pay attention to drug laws are not the ones you should be worried about."

Prostitution? Same thing.

Global warming?

Freedom of speech?

Unusual sexual practices?

Minority religions?

It applies to every single one.

For most people, making something illegal won't change their morality. It might prevent someone from abusing a freedom, but more likely it will just restrict the freedom of those who have already proved that they are responsible adults.

So at that point, don't these laws simply impose immoral and irresponsible conditions in the name of freedom?

The people who will obey the law will obey. And those taking advantage will simply break the law with no real consequences. The only things that increase are taxes and government power.

Who really benefits by making someone sign for cough medicine?

Posted: Sun - July 15, 2007 at 01:45 PM

Tags: standard libertarian argument ∙ illegal drugs ∙ prostitution ∙ global warming ∙ sex ∙ religion ∙ abuse ∙ freedom ∙ responsibility ∙ consequences ∙ cough medicine

Tags: religion ∙ sociaism ∙ capitalism ∙ traditionalism ∙ bread ∙ breadline

No one person and no one group has all the answers. No one group should be vested with THE moral authority to decide who is and is not a hate group.

The SPLC needs competition.

Tags: Southern Poverty Law Center ∙ hate groups ∙ competition ∙ religion ∙ authority ∙ FedGovs ∙ press ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ KKK ∙ Nation of Islam ∙ pro-life Christian ministries ∙ militias ∙ hate crime ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Mark Potok ∙ hypocrites

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: state ∙ individual ∙ product ∙ service ∙ compulsory ∙ consequences ∙ legal framework ∙ religion ∙ civil rights ∙ cosmetic surgery ∙ gender reassignment ∙ service ∙ abortion ∙ minority ∙ religious right ∙ freedom ∙ choice ∙ the public good

Family asked to remove 'offensive' Jesus sign from their Christmas display because it offended a neighbour

““A family has been asked to take down a sign with the name “Jesus” from their Christmas display, after a neighbour reportedly claimed it was offensive.

Mark and Lynn Wivell said their homeowner’s association had made the request after they put up the display outside their home in Adams County, Pennsylvania.

"As part of our Christmas decoration, we would display the name Jesus to point out to everyone that we in this family believe that the reason for the season is to celebrate the birth of Jesus," Mr Wivell told the FOX43 news channel.””
     — Henry Austin

Tags: clipping ∙ Henry Austin ∙ religion ∙ holiday display ∙ Christmas ∙ Adams County ∙ Mark and Lynn Wivell

Tags: climate change ∙ Miami ∙ United Nations ∙ Security Council ∙ Trump administration ∙ illegal immigrants ∙ Jerusalem ∙ United States ∙ men ∙ women ∙ #MeToo ∙ trust ∙ Robert Mueller ∙ FBI ∙ Democrats ∙ weaponize ∙ sexual assault ∙ Masterpiece Cakeshop ∙ Mark Zuckerberg ∙ ISP ∙ red light cameras ∙ national security ∙ religion ∙ Donald Trump ∙ social trust ∙ Massachusetts ∙ California ∙ livestock ∙ Navajo Nation ∙ Wells Fargo ∙ net neutrality

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Christian ∙ campus ∙ mass shootings ∙ Las Vegas ∙ shooting ∙ The Satanic Temple ∙ lawsuit ∙ State Department ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ religion ∙ surveillance ∙ Congress ∙ net neutrality ∙ competition ∙ University of Iowa ∙ Faith organization ∙ humanist ∙ atheist ∙ climate change ∙ hate crime

❝❝Faith and religion don't stay in the nice neat boxes and cabinets we make for them. Syncretism happens, even if it offends the True Believer™.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ faith ∙ religion ∙ syncretism

Works like a charm.

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ mainstream ∙ authentic ∙ legitimate ∙ faith ∙ concede

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

Roundup of the headline links

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ Roger Ebert ∙ Barack Obama ∙ criticism ∙ Rush Limbaugh ∙ faith ∙ libertarian ∙ racist ∙ Tea Party ∙ religion ∙ wingnuts ∙ Presidency ∙ Office of the President Elect ∙ post-racial ∙ transparent ∙ closing Gitmo ∙ healthcare ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ Glenn Beck ∙ Obama Administration ∙ Treasury Department ∙ International banks ∙ Iraq ∙ military advisors ∙ favorites ∙ classic

❝❝If you won't honor someone's religious choice, why should they honor yours?

If you are not willing to live with those of other faiths, why should they give way and not you?

Parity. The Golden Rule. It's in your own teachings if you look hard enough.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ parity test ∙ Golden Rule ∙ religion ∙ faiths

❝❝A choice that is imposed is no choice. Religion imposed in the name of “freedom and decency” will be neither free nor decent.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: religion ∙ choice ∙ free ∙ decent

❝❝Religion is the excuse not the reason.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: religion ∙ excuse ∙ reason ∙ maxims

❝❝One of my professors pointed out that Mark 12:17 could be interpreted to keep politics out of religion and religion out of politics. It's probably not true, but I like the thought. Politics is about controlling others and we know it corrupts almost everything it touches.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ control ∙ corruption

❝❝Do you know how many cultures and nations Western Civilization borrowed from? Syncretism, it's not just for religion.

It's not necessary to claim WestCiv as “white.” Just say it's a collection of extraordinarily proven good ideas that have worked time and time again. Claim it as “white” and you're invoking tribalism and rousing people's natural defenses. Claim it as “white” and in a very patronizing way you grant permission to join.

Invite people to join because “they can make it better” works with more people. And it makes your life better too.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Western Civilization ∙ syncretism ∙ religion ∙ tribalism ∙ make things better

What is to stop someone else from deciding that it's a good cause to thump you over the head? Once the excuses start, what's to protect you from the politics of the day?

Tags: baseball bat ∙ violence ∙ right cause ∙ justified ∙ libertarian ∙ non-aggression principle ∙ progressive ∙ pagan ∙ Republican ∙ religion ∙ Charlottesville ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ bilagáana ∙ Navajo reservation ∙ Four Corners ∙ marginalization of minorities ∙ Antifa ∙ black bloc ∙ violence justified ∙ morally justified ∙ Tef Poe ∙ Yusra Khogali ∙ racism

““Libertarians don't want special rights for certain groups based on their race, gender, age, orientation, or religion.

Libertarians want to protect natural rights for all people simply because they are human beings.””

Tags: libertarian ∙ special rights ∙ certain groups ∙ race ∙ gender ∙ age ∙ orientation ∙ religion ∙ natural rights ∙ humans ∙ memes

❝❝Let me point out that tax exempt status is at best a "devil's trade." In exchange for the tax deduction, the organizations (and sometimes the officers) lose their political voice and the IRS gets itemized lists of what was donated and who donated it.

There's also the small bit that if there are tax deductions, then by definition taxes are too high.

However, “Religion cannot be allowed the coercive power of government. Government cannot be allowed the moral justification of religion.”

---

The 1st Amendment doesn't deal with subsets. The incredibly ironic bit is the history of churches in American politics, particularly the abolitionist movement.

I didn't say it was a complete list, I said it was an itemized list. It is enough to find "known associates" though.

Tax deductions are evidence that taxes are too high. It's also evidence of diverting capital, taking it away from unapproved activities and moving it towards approved activities. There's more, but it involves a long examination of progressive tax systems and it won't add anything but noise to our conversation.

---

Abraham Keteltas, Samuel West, Jonathan Mayhew, Peter Muhlenberg, and Samuel Cooper were just some of the colonial era ministers. In England for a while, the American Revolution was called the Presbyterian Revolution because so many Presbyterian pastors were involved.

But the abolitionist movement and the American Civil War was when things really got going. Look at names like John Todd, Joshua Leavitt, Benjamin Bradford, Luther Lee, and Samuel Salisbury. Without these men and their churches, the abolitionist movement would never have blossomed. Christians aren't perfect and I am certainly a critic. But it took British and American Christians to end the slave trade, they deserve credit for that.

The 1950s-1960s civil rights movement was heavily rooted in churches, especially in the American south.

As I said, the tax exempt status is a "devil's trade" intended in large part to silence churches.

---

I provided examples which at the very least would have violated the propaganda restrictions of the Johnson amendment if it had been in effect then. Yet those are a valued part of American history and important benchmarks in religious freedom.

A little further examination would have shown that American churches and synagogues have traditionally called politicos out on bad ideas and bad behavior.

---

It's not about "prophesy of the pulpit." It's about moral authority. Ideas like liberty, revolution, and slavery were talked about during worship. In those days more than anything else including the press, worship is where those ideas were set out in detail by men who made their living communicating well and clearly. I admit it's a part of history that is often overlooked, but it exists none the less.

Take a closer look. The Johnson amendment covers both endorsement and anti-endorsement, intervening in political campaigns is prohibited. It also limits lobbying, propaganda, and other political activity.

Pagans of all people know what a bad idea it is when a politico wraps themselves in the flag and waves holy writ as justification.

BTW, I have to give you points for that phrase "prophesy of the pulpit." It's poetic if not exactly accurate in this case.

---

You're right, that part of the law is seldom enforced. I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

So here is my next question. If the law as it exists is so potentially prone to abuse even as it is not enforced, why does the Johnson amendment exist?

My theory is that it was one of Johnson's infamous deals. In the early 1950s, the modern civil rights movement was just getting started, but the split was already there. It's a little inaccurate, but I call the two sides the MLK side and the Malcolm X side. Later the Malcolm X side was dominated by the Black Panthers, but that part of the story isn't necessary for our discussion here.

The MLK side wanted to work within the system making sure that existing law was enforced. The Malcolm X side relied on direct confrontation to create radical change and separate from the US if necessary. There was rivalry between the two sides, and at the time no one was sure which side would dominate. Johnson saw the potential need for what today we would call the nuclear option. As long as everything proceeded peacefully, the government would never need to use the stick. Meanwhile, everything was nicely registered and reported to the government, "just in case."

It wasn't the first time the IRS was used to monitor Americans and it wouldn't be the last.

---

You're right. I should have said existing Constitutional law, that was my mistake.

That wasn't the only operational difference, but it certainly was one of the most important. Bryan Burrough points out in Days of Rage that some "blacks" were disappointed as more moved north and they didn't instantly get more of what they felt had been denied them.

Existing state and local law in the south supported segregation, most Federal law did not. It varied in other states, not so much in the West but heavy in union states. When Truman reversed Wilson's segregation of the armed forces, the writing was on the wall.

---

Under what part of the 1st Amendment is Congress granted the power to regulate free speech?

Under what part of the 1st Amendment is Congress granted the power to regulate religion?

Yet the Johnson amendment does both.

Which tax argument? The fact that deductions mean that taxes are too high? Or that government uses a progressive tax code to encourage some behaviors and discourage others?

Can you show that either argument is BS?

---

Actually it does.

The perception in America is that you are not a "real" church unless you have tax exempt certification. Just like a few years back when conservative groups were having problems getting 503 certification, most people don't want to give money unless they know that the IRS is not going to audit them. The easy path is to do what the government tells you to do. That is not necessarily the right thing. Once a group has the certification, they are bound by the regulations if they wish to keep the majority of their donors. Those regulations are subject to change at any time, and have gotten more restrictive since the Johnson amendment was passed.

Every dollar that the government collects in taxes reduces individual purchasing power. Regardless of what some experts will tell you, the economy is driven by the individual buying goods and services and not by government regulation. More money, more purchases (or savings). Less money, more credit, less purchases and less savings.

Even if you think that only the "rich" pay higher taxes, that means less money for things like jobs, equipment, and expansion. That means less economic growth.

The second order effects of special taxes can be even worse. A few decades ago, Congress put out a luxury tax on high end planes, yachts, high end boats, and cars. All those industries took a major hit. Building and storing yachts and high end boats still haven't recovered.

It gets worse. Thanks to payroll withholding and "standard" deductions, the government effectively gives itself no-interest loans from your money. Multiply that by a hundred million or so and you get into some serious cash.

These are examples from taxes. I haven't discussed currency manipulation (inflation) or spending.

---

"Surely by your argument, there should be no tax exempt organizations at all, because the very existence of them proves taxes are too high."

Yes.

At the very least, no tax exempt organizations would mean fewer bureaucrats to monitor compliance and regulate.

"Government money goes back into the community and absolutely does stimulate economic growth."

It does that by displacing private investment. Private money wants a return on investment, which means maintaining facilities and periodic upgrades. Except for corporatism, companies stay in business by making their products better, cheaper, and more available.

"The rich actually mostly sock money away…"

Um, no they don't. There isn't a money vault or a stuffed mattress, smart people put their money to work. Some buy stocks, some buy bonds, some invest in companies. Unless the money earns a higher yield than the rate of inflation and the tax rate, it's worth less.

"…and pay LOWER taxes than the rest of us…"

According to the National Taxpayer Union Foundation, in 2014 the top ten percent of income earners paid 70.88% of the income tax. The top fifty percent of income earners paid 97.25% of the income tax.

Spending is not the same as taxing. Government at all levels has done a rotten job of maintaining facilities, much less upgrading them. Private ownership does wonders, as things like the Empire State Building show.

Government usually puts money aside for infrastructure and then diverts the money into more "essential" things. It's one of the oldest tricks in government accounting. Then more money is "needed."

What's more, government is a lousy judge of where to spend and what to spend it on. Just as one example, less than a handful of VA hospitals are worth it, but we keep tossing more and more money at the problem.❞❞

Tags: tax exempt ∙ devil's trade ∙ tax deduction ∙ political voice ∙ IRS ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ government ∙ moral justification ∙ First Amendment ∙ capital ∙ unapproved activities ∙ approved activities ∙ progressive tax systems ∙ Abraham Keteltas ∙ Samuel West ∙ Jonathan Mayhew ∙ Peter Muhlenberg ∙ Samuel Cooper ∙ American Revolution ∙ Presbyterian Revolution ∙ abolitionist movement ∙ Civil War ∙ John Todd ∙ Joshua Leavitt ∙ Benjamin Bradford ∙ Luther Lee ∙ Samuel Salisbury ∙ churches ∙ Christians ∙ Johnson amendment ∙ synagogues ∙ politicos ∙ prophesy of the pulpit ∙ history ∙ National Taxpayer Union Foundation ∙ liberty ∙ revolution ∙ slavery ∙ worship

Competition drives the free market, to keep customers companies have to make things better than their rivals and better than what they themselves did yesterday.

Competition is what the "single payer" eliminates in the name of efficiency, yet over time competition means that products and services will be better, faster, and cheaper.

There is no incentive to improve under a government controlled system. There is overwhelming incentive to pay off legislators and technocrats for favorable treatment.

---

I'm usually correct.

Except when I'm wrong… *grins*

Jokes aside, you probably agree with me on economics, smaller government and (most) individual rights. We won't agree on religion, personal morality, and sexuality. I hope we can agree on honor.

I hang out here to keep me honest and so I can see how conservatives think. And occasionally to keep you honest *wink* and keep you from taking yourself too seriously.

---

I just get very tired of watching people who should know better lump all members of a group into a monolithic block who is out to destroy their way of life and must be Stopped for the Good of Humanity™

The ironic thing is many of the people who complain loudest about it being done to them are only too willing to turn around and do it to someone else.

I've seen pagans do it to Christians, "blacks" do it to "Hispanics," Republicans do it to Democrats, and women doing it to men.

And vice versa.

You know what? It's not the label shouting and doing things, it's the individual person. Until you deal them as individuals rather than as a subset of a label, you have walled yourself off.

Not them. You.

---

Thinking about it just now, that raises a fascinating question.

Which is worth more, a moral code handed to you or one earned through personal experience?

---

I'm not asking you to follow my code.

I'm not even asking you to allow me to follow my code.

I'm telling you that I won't follow your code just as you would tell me that you won't follow mine.

Now we could find what we agree on and work from there, or you could spend effort telling me why your enlightenment requires my sacrifice.

I think the former would be more productive, but I would enjoy your frustration at the latter too.

Tags: competition ∙ make things better ∙ rivals ∙ yesterday ∙ incentives ∙ government ∙ economics ∙ smaller government ∙ individual rights ∙ religion ∙ personal morality ∙ sexuality ∙ honor ∙ honest ∙ conservatives ∙ monolithic block ∙ Christians ∙ pagans ∙ blacks ∙ Hispanics ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ women ∙ men ∙ moral code ∙ enlightenment ∙ sacrifice ∙ Crux Files

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: marriage ∙ Christians ∙ legal ∙ state ∙ church ∙ registered ∙ license ∙ religion ∙ mixed race ∙ mixed faith ∙ freedom ∙ fundamentalist

❝❝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

❝❝Here's the dirty little secret that you're avoiding. The evil is not in a belief system. That's the excuse, not the reason. No book has ever committed genocide. No song has ever burned someone alive. No long lost chant has ever raped.

It's people who speak and people who act. It's people who do good, and people who do evil.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ good ∙ evil ∙ people ∙ religion ∙ faith system ∙ book ∙ genocide ∙ song ∙ burned someone alive ∙ long lost chant ∙ raped

❝❝I can't stress this enough.

The state is not a moral entity. Government is not your friend, at best it is a bad servant.

Religion can not be allowed the coercive power of the state and the state can not be allowed the moral justification of faith.

You can't trust law to do the right thing. You have to watch it. You have to argue with it. And sometimes you have to fight it.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ right thing ∙ watch it ∙ argue with it ∙ fIght it ∙ state ∙ moral entity ∙ government is not your friend ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ moral justification

❝❝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

❝❝I believe that faith and religion can be a tremendous source of individual morality and a dangerous tyranny in society.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ faith ∙ religion ∙ tyranny

I want a government that is smaller than absolutely necessary.

I believe that people are perfectly capable of making their own choices and that society is the better if people do exactly that.

I believe that faith and religion can be a tremendous source of individual morality and a dangerous tyranny in society.

There is more but that will do for a start.

---

And there you go, presuming to speak for the Divine in regards to my fate.

I'm sure that makes you feel important. Worthy. Superior.

Do you think you would take offense if I did the same thing to you?

Or do you think your faith supersedes mine?

Just in case you've forgotten:

It always seems to come down to whose belief comes first, who presumes to speak for the Divine, and what happens when someone disagrees.

---

I think you're the first one here who asked me what I believe. You deserve a good answer. But this really isn't about me, it's about us finding common ground.

So to start with:

I call myself pagan because I don't have a better term. I'm polytheistic and pantheistic. On alternate Thursdays and every third Tuesday I might admit to being panetheistic with an animism bent as well. On the 13th of the month, I'll tell you (truthfully) that the label isn't really all that important, only the manifestation.

====================
My path involves recognizing and celebrating the natural cycles in ourselves, in the world around us, and in the worlds we touch in our dreams. I seek the Divine in human, Nature, and machine. I want to find the synthesis between mankind and ideas, between faith and technology, between what was and what will be.

I believe that all things have a Divine nature. Life is the universe's attempt to understand itself. I know that the totality of the universe is too vast for me to comprehend. So there are godmasks that I turn to for understanding, guidance, and strength when mine is not enough. I know that these godmasks are only representations and gateways to Divinity, not Divinity themselves.

---

I'll let you in on a secret.

I try to treat people online as they have treated me. I'm nice until someone shows they don't deserve it.

For life in general, I have three rules.

THE GOLDEN RULE - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

THE SILVER RULE - Do for yourself at least as much as you do for others.

THE IRON RULE - Don't do for others what they can do for themselves.

---

I am totally for live and let live. It's the core of my most deeply held beliefs.

I really don't care about someone else's beliefs or politics unless they want to impose those on everyone else.

Going back to my original post on this thread, if the choice is between the absolute on the left side or the absolute on the right, I am going to pick freedom despite both.

I respectfully disagree with you on that.

---

There is a technopagan addendum to that.

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

Personally I don't think the two are as far removed as it would seem.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ government ∙ smaller than absolutely necessary ∙ choice & consequence ∙ faith ∙ religion ∙ Divine ∙ fate ∙ offensive ∙ believe ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Silver Rule ∙ Iron Rule ∙ live & let live

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

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ Christianity

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: Crux Files ∙ currency collapse ∙ Constitutional convention ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ national public referendum ∙ election ∙ none of the above ∙ RICO Act ∙ libertarian ∙ religion ∙ faith ∙ public schools ∙ Christians ∙ morality

Tags: prostitution ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ vice law ∙ religion ∙ moral ∙ politicos ∙ schools ∙ libraries ∙ luxury ∙ measurable harm ∙ parity test

It would not honor my faith, and it dishonors the Divine as I perceive it. It would require me to break oaths & promises that are at least as important to me as yours are to you.

Tags: religion ∙ Left ∙ Christians ∙ conservative ∙ RSM ∙ Thomas Jefferson

❝❝Religion cannot be allowed the coercive power of government. Government cannot be allowed the moral justification of religion.❞❞
     — NeoWayland, United We Stand

Tags: government ∙ coercive power ∙ religion ∙ moral justification ∙ maxims

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

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™

❝❝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

The FBI was fighting a PR war

Tags: faiths ∙ commenting ∙ common ground ∙ religion

Politics is about control

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ law of the land ∙ politicos

The only point in taking over the world is to make sure people make their own choices

Tags: DoD ∙ U.S. Air Force ∙ commenting ∙ conservative ∙ extremist ∙ individual rights ∙ car ∙ bands ∙ too big to fail ∙ housing loans ∙ equal rights ∙ skin color ∙ religion ∙ women's vote ∙ racists ∙ Imperious Leader ∙ Bush League ∙ Tricky Dick ∙ personal computer

❝❝…restricted groups…

Curious choice of phrasing there.

Okay, here's the NeoNotes™ version. In three parts.

---

Part the First — Labels don't define people, labels describe people. Just because one Democrat orthodontist Mets fan beats his wife and kids does't mean that all Democrats do. Or all orthodontists do. Or all Mets fans do.

It means one person does.

Until you can show that ALL individuals within a group are equally guilty of all crimes, then you can't link group membership to the crime.

---

"The word is not the thing." "The map is not the territory." The person is not the label.

Not all cancer victims smoke. Not all people wearing pants commit armed robbery. Not all American males like football.

You do not control people by slapping a on a label.

---

Part the Second — No matter how much you disapprove of someone's behavior and personal life, if it's not against the law it's none of your business.

Remember that last bit.

It's none of your business.

Make it your business for whatever reason, and you open yourself up to people poking in yours.

---

Depends on the behavior.

Molesting kids, that is against the law and I accept that law as a workable compromise.

Laws against what consenting adults do, well, that is bad law. I don't care if it's a home brewery, scrapbooking, or sex, it's none of your business.

See Part the Third.

The law has no virtue because it is law.

---

Part the Third — There are limited times ANYTHING should be against the law.

If it doesn't threaten another's person or property, then it probably shouldn't be a law.

Just because your religion says it's not right doesn't mean it should be illegal. Unless you want to be controlled by another's religion.

I think we should compromise and at least try to protect children.

Anything else should be hands off.❞ 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.

This particular thread inspired the name.

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

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

It’s not a right unless the other guy has it too.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ individual freedom ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ informed choice ∙ human rights ∙ initiate force ∙ choice & consequence ∙ labels ∙ none of your business ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ moral justification

Very silly.

Tags: global warming ∙ internet ∙ public science ∙ modern liberal ∙ good intentions ∙ religion

I believe that economics and morality should be based in free choice.

Tags: conservative ∙ good intentions ∙ parity test ∙ freely chosen ∙ religion

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

Is it really all that different than the 1960s?

Tags: religion ∙ personal choice ∙ personal responsiblity ∙ religious view ∙ spiritual view ∙ force

Some people are deliberately confusing the issues to advance their beliefs

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

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

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

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

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ IRS ∙ religion ∙ coercive power ∙ person of faith ∙ multi-cultural ∙ parity test ∙ multi-apologetic

The only worthy faiths and beliefs are those freely chosen

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ Pagan ∙ reciprocity ∙ religion ∙ classic ∙ favorites ∙ cross posted

My take on true believers of all stripes.

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

Just the FAQs about my Vigil

Tags: Original Vigil ∙ libertarian ∙ progressive ∙ socialist ∙ modern liberal ∙ religion ∙ economic freedom ∙ human rights ∙ personal freedom ∙ conservative ∙ bad choices ∙ for your own good ∙ smaller than absolutely necessary ∙ Zero Agression Principle ∙ KYFHO ∙ Pagan ∙ individual freedom ∙ personal responsiblity ∙ part time troublemaker ∙ person of faith ∙ Zero Aggression Principle ∙ Non-Aggression Principle ∙ Veritas

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