Religion? Pfft

The following was written by the good friend of the blog Eli, and thanks to my laziness and forgetfulness it's been languishing in some god forsaken folder on my computer. So here it is, in all it's glory. Thanks, Eli... I'm sorry this took so long.

'There is a resolution in the House of Representatives currently that attempting to create an "American Religious History Week.” Specifically, the aim is to affirm "...the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as 'American Religious History Week' for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith." In this resolution is a list of ties between church (specifically the Christian church) and state over the history of this country and the forming thereof. This list seems to be provided as evidence that since in the past there have been ties between the Christian faith and government that this trend should continue.

Three Points of Idiocy in this Resolution:

1) The first amendment CLEARLY states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This resolution clearly respects the establishment of Christianity... simple as that.

2) Not only does it respect the establishment of a religion, it respects the establishment of ONE religion. Besides being in violation of the first amendment, it also discriminates against everyone of a minority religion, or those without religion.

3) The resolution also states that Thomas Jefferson "urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, provided Federal funding for missionary work among Indian tribes, and declared that religious schools would receive the patronage of the government," this coming from the man that was a firm believer in separation of church and state. Therefore, either this statement is false, or Jefferson was a huge hypocrite. Either way, this does not change the first amendment.

The same is done throughout the entire document. There is a list of violations of the first amendment or presidents and other major figures speaking of the good religion has done. Instead of providing a list of evidence for the creation of an "American Religious History Week," this creates a list of the many violations of the first amendment. It is as though the authors of this resolution mean to say, "Well, there's a history of violating the first amendment, so it must be OK to continue this trend." To this, I say: Well, there is a significant history of gun violence in this country, so it must be OK to continue this trend... someone get me an Uzi.

We must first realize that even if the statements made are true, this does not make them OK. Just because TJ supposedly said that Christian schools would receive the support of the US government does not justify the continuation of this behavior in any way, because last time I checked, the first amendment is still in the constitution.

We must also remember that separation of church and state is a part of the US constitution for a very good reason. If we have all forgotten our US history, many of the early settlers in the US fled their country because of religious persecution. Before that, many people were tortured and died because of differing religious views in medieval periods. Separation of church and state prevents the kind of control that the church wreaked on Europe for centuries. The writings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau were at least in some part inspired by the oppression of a political church they witnessed in their lifetime. This liberal revolution is the basis for our current government. The liberalness I speak of is of course the protection or individual rights and self-preservation, not a present day Democratic Party sort of liberal (just in case there is any confusion). It is a simple conclusion then that to believe in this country’s constitution and the principles that are behind it is to believe that the state should in no way endorse or respect the institution of religion, as a whole or an individual institution.

I realize there is a strong argument that the US is basically a Christian nation already because of the overwhelming percentage of Christians that make up this country. I agree that a large portion of our culture in the US has been shaped by the Christian religion. There is still a big difference between what has been ingrained socially through time, and what is supported by the government through laws/acts/bills. Just because the majority of the nation is Christian does not make it OK to pass bills respecting the establishment of Christianity. The same goes for the passing of bills that would support any other religion.

I want to make clear that I do no suggest this bill would have devastating effects, especially relative to past religious debacles. Actually, the bill most likely will not even make it to the floor of the House. I would also like to clear up the fact that while my personal views differ from that of the Christian religion, and for that matter any religion, I find nothing wrong with religious views and believe everyone is entitled to their own views. My point in writing this is that I seriously question the quality both of the electorate, and the people they are electing. Anyone with half a brain that read the first amendment could figure out that this bill is disgustingly unconstitutional. I believe the people writing this bill know that (at least I hope), and they are shamelessly attempting to push their beliefs onto everyone else.

This brings me to my next point that the religious right cannot be allowed to translate their beliefs into legislation. There are many religious beliefs that coincide with reason, and are laws because of reason, not religion. Other issues, such as gay marriage, are argued on a purely religious level, and homosexuals are denied basic rights because of an unconfirmed belief. On a separate note, I believe it is in the Christian religion to love they neighbor and the golden rule, to do unto others as you would have done unto you… or something along those lines. It seems as though a golden rule would trump any other quotation pulled from the bible that it would come into conflict with. I seriously suggest the religious right consider this closely they next time they think about the way they treat others, because no logical person would have themselves discriminated against. The conclusion I come to here is that everyone in the religious right is either illogical, an enormous hypocrite, or they are simply using the Christian doctrine and bending it to suit their personal vendettas.

I know this was a somewhat scattered and vague train of thought, but thank you to those who read the entire thing.

P.S. This is the link to the House Resolution:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110oHeu9f::'