Religion vs. Reality

"All things - but in moderation" would not be inappropriate on my tombstone.  I recognize that it is unrealistic to expect to have everything your way and, although personally non-religious, I accept with equanimity much of the pervasive intrusion of Christian religion into our supposedly secular society.  I get nearly as irritated as the devout at the ACLU when they waste MY money with crap like insisting on removal of the mission cross from the LA County seal.  Yes, I was annoyed back when they added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and would prefer that the Pledge be returned to its original form, but if not, I can continue to live with it.

However, one thing that really does set me off is the continuing efforts of the (read Christian) religious community to interfere with the teaching of science.  You can believe the earth is flat, that it was created last Thursday, that the universe rests upon a giant turtle, or that supernatural beings or space aliens control our existence all you like.  I have no problem with, and actually support, the concept of having balanced, comparative religion classes in schools (that means comparing beliefs of all religions, NOT teaching Christianity).  But don't, DON'T try to force the teaching of your religion in science classes!!  That is over the top and to me is totally unacceptable behavior, and I don't make any bones about it.  Me, the ACLU and the 9^th Circuit Court are all right together on this one.

A gentleman named Steve Mirsky does a better job than I ever could at skewering all the various anti-reason forces, and always does it with a bit of humor.  Here's a link to one of his pieces particularly appropriate to this rant: Sticker Shock

AND MORE....

On Church and State

A constant battle rages between those who feel America is supposed to be a secular democracy and those who are convinced we are absolutely, positively supposed to be some kind of Christian quasi-theocracy. 

The battle mostly revolves around that provision within the Constitution which reads "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." 

Like many seemingly simple pronouncements this one has huge ramifications.  The "establishment of religion" clause obviously was intended to prevent the Federal Government from establishing an official "Church of America" in the manner of the British "Church of England".  The "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part, equally obviously, was meant to insure one could practice whatever religion suits their personal fancy.

So far, so good, yet as the TV pitchman always said "but wait!"  

The Christian community argues that America is supposed to have a Christian version of Islamic sharia incorporated into its laws & proceedings wherever they feel it appropriate, and that "establishment of religion" means only that Congress cannot favor a Baptist version over a Presbyterian one.  I absolutely reject this notion.

Secular adherents (such as myself) feel that for the Government to incorporate overtly religious beliefs not shared by everyone into its myriad operations is tantamount to establishing a religion.  Typical examples: You are at some government related function (city council meeting or whatever) and the people running the show announce "let us bow our heads and pray", inevitably followed by some invocation of Jesus.  Or the local school board tries to require that their public schools incorporate religious beliefs into their science teachings (e.g. earth and all on it was created all at once in its present form some 6000 years ago and/or evolution is a lie).  These are in fact acts that are specifically intended to further an official insertion or "establishment" of religion within government and are therefore prohibited by the Constitution.

Logically, to me, the prohibition against "establishment" was intended encompass all religions, not merely to prohibit favoring one version of Christianity over another.  Yes, our founders mostly had Christian backgrounds, but they were smart people and you cannot convince me they did not intend, through this Constitutional provision, to separate government from religion.  My interpretation of the clause is the same as that of Thomas Jefferson, whose articulation of the "separation of Church and State" concept so annoys the religious.

It is a reality of life in America is that unless you are - or pretend to be - a believer, or at a minimum keep your mouth shut about not believing, you'll be at a social handicap.  Politicians, in particular, have to play the game to get elected to anything much higher than dogcatcher (can you imagine a candidate for Senator who admits he/she doesn't believe getting elected?)  Fortunately, in spite of this bias, the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part is much less controversial, as most everyone, including yours truly, agrees that you can believe or not believe anything you want as long as it doesn't move you to actions that impermissibly affect others.  Or violate the Constitution.