that's ok, they say you shouldn't eat spicy food before you go to sleep, that's why I am awake.
I don't carry my religion into open discussion because I think that most people really don't want to hear about one's religion. And people really don't want to hear about my religion in public discourse, because it's hard to explain.
And I don't ask people to abide by the tenets of my religion. I don't ask them to do the things I do or believe the things that I believe, just as I think they should not ask me to do the things they do and believe the things that they believe.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the basis of governance and law in American society, or rather, they should be - as there have been rather egregious violations of same by the people in public office who are supposed to be protecting these things. Morality is personal; Ethics are common sense. Every religion has "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" encoded in its DNA somewhere.
however that being said, there are many people on the Right, and more correctly the Far Right Fundamentalist Christian Right, who are bringing unarguable first principles to the table. Unarguable in that they do not wish to argue about them, nor do they wish to hear any dissent. This frightens me, and the loudness of their voices in public discourse frightens me. And frightened people very often become angry, and fight back with the force they feel the Other is using toward them.
Frustration: they do not stop. Dominionist theology, which is the primary mode of thought in the far right fundamentalist christian camp, does not brook dissent, and it does not tire or waver. In being this way it demands a response of the same kind from those who do not cling to this "moral" framework; every action produces a reaction, everyone sees the flipside of themselves when they look in the mirror.
Agreeing to disagree is part of the problem; debate and, insofar as it is capable, objective decision making that takes all points of view into account is part of the solution.
These are human things, governance is or should be decided by the people. Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." He drew a sharp line between political involvement and spiritual involvement. This can be seen over and over again in the New Testament. The story of the Pharisees who asked why Jesus didn't pay taxes is an example; Jesus cared so little about their opinion that he had Peter go down to the sea and catch a fish, and in the fish's mouth was enough money to pay for both Peter and himself. By which Jesus was saying (IMHO) that he simply could not be bothered; his work was elsewhere, and if they wanted taxes then they would have them. Which is when he said the "render" line.
another example: when the soldiers came to get him in the Garden, and Peter pulled a sword and struck off a soldier's ear. Jesus told Peter in no uncertain terms to put away his sword, and promptly healed the soldier's ear.
Peter, like a modern fundamentalist, was willing to war over what he believed was right. Jesus knew more about what was going to happen, and stopped it, because Peter would have interfered with the plan.
historically, when Christians believe they know the future - when they believe they know better than God, and when they try to inflict their values (which may be erroneous; look at Cotton Mather for an example) on the society, the worst always, always happens.
Spirituality is a private matter. Rules of societal conduct are in the laws and the constitution.
Which is why Tom DeLay scares me with his talk of revenging himself on judges. The ghost of Cotton Mather looks at us over DeLay's shoulder and gives a mocking Puritan laugh as he watches the so-called witches swing from the gallows, and he hisses, "God's work is done." what God did he serve by killing crazy old ladies and grumpy old men who did not agree with the Puritans' views?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-04-10 09:53 am (UTC)I don't carry my religion into open discussion because I think that most people really don't want to hear about one's religion. And people really don't want to hear about my religion in public discourse, because it's hard to explain.
And I don't ask people to abide by the tenets of my religion. I don't ask them to do the things I do or believe the things that I believe, just as I think they should not ask me to do the things they do and believe the things that they believe.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the basis of governance and law in American society, or rather, they should be - as there have been rather egregious violations of same by the people in public office who are supposed to be protecting these things. Morality is personal; Ethics are common sense. Every religion has "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" encoded in its DNA somewhere.
however that being said, there are many people on the Right, and more correctly the Far Right Fundamentalist Christian Right, who are bringing unarguable first principles to the table. Unarguable in that they do not wish to argue about them, nor do they wish to hear any dissent. This frightens me, and the loudness of their voices in public discourse frightens me. And frightened people very often become angry, and fight back with the force they feel the Other is using toward them.
Frustration: they do not stop. Dominionist theology, which is the primary mode of thought in the far right fundamentalist christian camp, does not brook dissent, and it does not tire or waver. In being this way it demands a response of the same kind from those who do not cling to this "moral" framework; every action produces a reaction, everyone sees the flipside of themselves when they look in the mirror.
Agreeing to disagree is part of the problem; debate and, insofar as it is capable, objective decision making that takes all points of view into account is part of the solution.
These are human things, governance is or should be decided by the people. Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." He drew a sharp line between political involvement and spiritual involvement. This can be seen over and over again in the New Testament. The story of the Pharisees who asked why Jesus didn't pay taxes is an example; Jesus cared so little about their opinion that he had Peter go down to the sea and catch a fish, and in the fish's mouth was enough money to pay for both Peter and himself. By which Jesus was saying (IMHO) that he simply could not be bothered; his work was elsewhere, and if they wanted taxes then they would have them. Which is when he said the "render" line.
another example: when the soldiers came to get him in the Garden, and Peter pulled a sword and struck off a soldier's ear. Jesus told Peter in no uncertain terms to put away his sword, and promptly healed the soldier's ear.
Peter, like a modern fundamentalist, was willing to war over what he believed was right. Jesus knew more about what was going to happen, and stopped it, because Peter would have interfered with the plan.
historically, when Christians believe they know the future - when they believe they know better than God, and when they try to inflict their values (which may be erroneous; look at Cotton Mather for an example) on the society, the worst always, always happens.
Spirituality is a private matter. Rules of societal conduct are in the laws and the constitution.
Which is why Tom DeLay scares me with his talk of revenging himself on judges. The ghost of Cotton Mather looks at us over DeLay's shoulder and gives a mocking Puritan laugh as he watches the so-called witches swing from the gallows, and he hisses, "God's work is done." what God did he serve by killing crazy old ladies and grumpy old men who did not agree with the Puritans' views?