Con’td The politics of Church and Science

In yesterday’s post I stated that I would like to see religion removed from political considerations; in other words, the true separation of church and state. The 1st Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The piece I’m referring to is in the very first phrase: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. No matter how the various religions spin it, the fact that the framers of the Constitution felt that this was important enough to be the very first phrase in the Bill of Rights.

The Pilgrims came to the shores of this new world precisely to escape the restrictions of a religion which, essentially, ruled England. This was in the minds of the authors when they were crafting the Bill of Rights.

The religious right will point out that despite those words all of our Presidents are sworn in with their hand on the Bible and that the motto on our money is “In God We Trust.” And they are absolutely right in that. But no politician in modern times will point out the hypocrisy of “Strict Constitutionalism” on that point. I suspect that the money piece of that has more to do with it than anything else. In fact one of the few bills which the House of Representatives tried to put through since the Republicans gained the majority is to re-affirm “In God…” as our national motto.

Could you imagine a time when someone of a non-Christian religious persuasion could be elected in this country? Right now the evangelical leaders are meeting in Texas to figure out what their response could be to the almost certain nomination of a Mormon as the Republican presidential candidate. But Mormonism by the actual name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is a Christian religion; albeit a much more modern variation than almost any other.

Even Jack Kennedy got grief when he was in the process of running for president because he was a <oh the horror of it> Catholic; which, in the broadest sense, is the origin of the religion of Christianity. Yes I know the history, so don’t email me pointing out the inaccuracy of that; I’m talking about an established and long reaching religion. In point of fact the Catholic Church didn’t face a strong Christian religous contender until many centuries later.

Could you imagine a Pagan of any strain, Wiccan, CAW, Assatru, etc. being elected even to local office, let alone Congress or President? Or a Buddhist or a follower of Shintoism? Frankly I am surprised that there is one Muslim in Congress. In that regard people of other religions are under-represented in our government. Yes, there are Jewish members, but the policy of both religions, outside of radical extremists, is to regard each other as a valid religion.

And people who are Atheists or Agnostic. Well they don’t really count at all, do they? You will see them here and there in local position but, as far as I know, there are none in Congress.

And there is a major part of the problem. Most people who are Atheistic or Agnostics are probably also firm believers in Science. It is a general statement, and probably unprovable unless someone decides to do a national poll on it, but I still feel confident in that statement.

The policy pushed by the Evangelists (and the N.A.R) in the U.S.A. is that if you don’t believe in the Bible as a statement of facts, you are not Christian. And people are flocking to that idea in droves. Never mind the inconsistencies inherent in that belief (the Bible is definitely a self-contradicting work), people in this country buy the idea wholesale.

I find myself agreeing with the teachings of Jesus Christ in many points, but two of them are particularly relevant to this discussion. In Matthew 21:12 Jesus tosses the money changers out of the temple. Also in Luke 20:25 He says “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

These two, in conjunction seem to support my point; money should not be the main object of the church, and that the church should let the government be what the government is; not an extension, or arm. of the Church. As an aside to the discussion, as far as I can tell He supported aiding the poor, promoting peace, and many other things which I also support. Jesus seems to have been a pretty cool dude to me.

But if you examine the holy text as a whole from a scientific point of view, it doesn’t hold together. And this really ticks Evangelists off. They want their words to be interpreted as the direct words of God, as they consider the Bible to be a factual account. And they have aligned themselves with the monied interests in this country totally against the spirit of the two verses I mentioned earlier.

Hence, the positions mentioned in the previous post which are totally unsupported by science. So why go to this all this trouble? Well, one really obvious answer to that question is money. But I think that, more than money, they are seeking power in the physical realm. My hypothesis on this, which will sound truly radical, will be explained in my next post…

Yep, to be continued… 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: