America: God's Nation?

Hi there,
A lot has been said recently about Christianity in America from the religious right. Those of us who wish to see religion kept out of politics are alarmed by the growing influence of Evangelicals in our politics. To be a viable candidate, it is all but essential that you be a Protestant Christian of some sort; in the Republican world, it is imperative. We lead Congress with prayer; the Bible is cited as the source for many political opinions. Rational people, anti-religionists, find this scary.

The other side sees it the opposite way: that this was meant to be a Christian nation, and that we are being led down a dark road to destruction as we "reject God" (note: separation of  Church and State is just that: separation. It is not a rejection of "God" on a personal basis, as over 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian!). We hear this argument from the grumbly Ben Stein:

"Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this Happen?" (regarding Katrina)

Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.

And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

Here are some quotes that show the "Founding Fathers" were NOT Christians and that this country was NOT meant to be a "Christian Nation."

___

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." - John Adams

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." -John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Ben Franklin

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Franklin

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)

"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself." -Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - James Madison in an 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?" - John Adams

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

Religion vs. the Environment

So a while ago I had a very aggravating conversation with someone about climate change. The radio was on with some coverage of the Copenhagen summit, and when an emotional statement about the future of our planet was made, this person rolled her eyes and scoffed.

"Well," I said, "It's not surprising that people get emotional about it. It is the only planet we have, after all. The ice caps are melting, species are dying, and things are getting out of hand."

"That's what they say," she retorted. "But I thought you were so slow to accept things without proof!"

"There's plenty of proof," I said. "I could show you some data right now. Would you care to see it?"

"No, I don't have time for that," she said. "Maybe you do, but I don't have the time to waste on that nonsense. There's lots of scientists - more every day - that say this whole thing is hogwash."

"There are a handful," I affirmed. "Mainly in the US, and mainly because Bush hired oil executives to 'advise' the government, and because corporations recognize the value of buying scientists to protect their corrupt interests. Why anybody would listen to them is beyond me. Don't you think there might be a conflict of interest there? Using junk science to promote your agenda?"

"Oh, and you don't think Al Gore is doing the same thing? You don't think his science is corrupt?"

"Not if 99% of the scientists around the world agree! There are pictures, graphs, data, all kinds of evidence for it. Denying it is ridiculous."

She scoffed. "You keep getting your so-called evidence from your websites, Nathan. You're blinded, fooled. You say you're so analytical and pretend to be knowledgeable, but you don't know. And if you were honest, you'd admit you don't know. You pretend to be this independent thinker, but you're just a sucker for the liberal agenda."

"It's hard to go against National Geographic, photographs, and 99% of the world's best scientists. I'm not blinded at all. I take my information from reputable sources. You think scientists around the world are involved in some kind of 'liberal' conspiracy! Science is not 'liberal.' It's ambivalence like yours that lets things get worse and worse."

"I'm not ambivalent," she said, offended. "I do my part. I pick up trash in the parks when I see it. I think we should be good stewards of the planet God gave us."

"Yet you defend the companies that are doing the damage in the name of capitalism?"

"If they're even all that bad," she said. "Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But you assume."

"No, I don't!" I said. "I can show you evidence. Would you care to see it?"

"I don't have time for that crap," she said. "For every bit of evidence you've got, there is evidence against it. We can go tit for tat on evidence, but why waste your time? You spend so much time on this crap, and it's a pretty poor use of your time if you ask me."

"Whatever," I said. "When you're considering evidence, you've got to consider the sources. Most of the guys who say climate change is a bunch of 'hogwash' were put in place by corporatist Republicans. You put them up against most of the world and say 'it's a wash'?"

"Let me ask you this," she said. "What are YOU doing about it? If it's such a big deal, what are you doing? Do YOU pick up trash in the parks?"

"Of course I do! But that isn't the point. Littering is not going to melt the polar ice caps. Greenhouse gases will."

Then we got to the crux of the issue.

She scoffed again. "Oh yeah, yeah. The big bad companies. You know, there are bigger things to worry about. Like people on drugs. People dying all over the place. Violence and degradation of society, ugliness everywhere coming straight out of that hip-hop music you think is so great. Perverting our American way of life to socialism."

"Okay, so let's fix those things and forget about the environment. That way, we can have a beautiful society and nowhere to put it when the planet dies."

"I'm not worried about the planet dying," she said. "This is God's planet. He made it. It's His. He will take care of this planet, and when it is time for it to be destroyed, He will destroy it. I'm not worried about it."

"Oh great," I said, getting really mad. "Yeah, leave it to God. We don't have to worry about a thing. Let's just let the engines of 'capitalism' do what they do, because God forbid we have higher priorities than the well-being of business tycoons. And we don't have to worry about the consequences, because God's in control."

"You're saying I don't care," she said. "But I do! Why are you putting words in my mouth? I already said, we ought to be good stewards of God's earth. But what are you helping? You think going around believing something is going to make a difference? Believing something that isn't even proven?"

"Well, what sources do you have for your alternate views? No wait, we both know what it is. Rush Limbaugh. If you can't see the problem with that, I don't know what to tell you. Don't you be calling me blind; that's all I have to say about that one. And the most effective way for these big oil folks to get what they want is managing public opinion, convincing everybody to be apathetic about it. Believe me, those oil companies are mighty glad you're religious and you think God will take care of it. Exxon thanks the Lord for the ignorance of Republicans everywhere. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that public opinion is the most effective tool for getting things done politically. If I spend time talking about it, it's to make a difference. THAT'S what I'm doing. I have a good vocabulary, I know how to debate, and I'm well-informed. I don't know what kind of difference I will make, but I might as well try using the tools I have at my disposal. You know, survival of the species and all that. Little miniscule concerns like that. Certainly nothing bigger than the threat of socialism or hip-hop."

"I'll let you worry about it," she said. "I don't have to worry. I know my Lord will take care of my planet."

"No, he won't," I said. "He obviously doesn't care about starving children in Africa - it's OUR job to care and help them. He obviously doesn't care about genocide - it's OUR job to care. And he obviously doesn't care about global warming. It's OUR job. If you're wrong about God being in control, your faith just cost humanity EVERYTHING THERE IS."

"I'm not wrong," she said. "I happen to know what's going to happen, and I don't have to face the future with fear.".

"Isn't that just a cop-out?"

"No!"

---

Of course, the conversation continued, but to keep telling you what happened would be useless and redundant.

This is why religion is dangerous. It is not okay. Your faith is fine with me, but only up until it starts infringing on my rights and the rights of other human beings. You religious folks out there have no proof for what you are saying, and you spit in the face of proofs. Evidence is irrelevent to you. Your dogmas have given you a lazy, irresponsible attitude that has cost many lives and will continue to cost many lives. For that reason, religion and faith are NOT okay. They are dangerous and the comfort they give comes at an unacceptable cost.

I beg you to separate your faiths from your political opinions. Believing God will take care of our problems is one thing; behaving as if we have nothing to worry about is quite another. A Persian proverb: "Trust in God, but tie your camel." Believe what you want; but what you believe is for YOU, not for your COUNTRY. You cannot lead a country by a book of religion. Witness, if you will, the brilliant things done by religious leaders of countries. Look at Iran. Look at the Inquisition. Look at God's Will being done in Iraq right now. Look around you and realize that we need science, proof, logic at the helm of a country, influencing our governments. Not superstition and faith.

If this person had her way, if she were in control of the government, we would do nothing to combat climate change. The scary part: she IS in control of the government. And so are you. It's time to get angry about our leadership's lassiez-faire attitude toward this issue and make a difference.

This is why I am against religion. It's not because of what it does to you and your brain; I don't care about you or your brain. Get high on pot, religion, alcohol, or whatever you want. It's none of my business. But don't get behind the wheel of a car drunk - you might do some damage. And don't get behind a voting booth high on religion - you might do some REAL damage. And don't you DARE get behind that desk in the Oval Office and start leading from your book of religion. You might do something stupid like start Wold War Three.

I beg you to ignore your religion when you vote and when you involve yourself in public life. It is for YOU, not for US. Leave me the hell out of your religion.

The Problem with the Tea Party

Today the “Tea Party” phenomenon has swept the nation, capitalizing on Americans’ LEGITIMATE concern over national debt, the growing power of the Federal Government, and various other libertarian ideals. You might be surprised to know I’m very much in favor of “tea party ideals” in principle. The reason I’m vehemently opposed to the Tea Party itself, even though I agree with the ideals behind it, is that they have been totally corrupted and if they are elected they will have NO chance of making the changes they CLAIM they will make.

First, the Tea Party as it was meant to be. The Tea Parties started out touting classic Libertarian ideals – the sort of thing you would hear from Ron Paul and Bob Barr:

-          “Stop borrowing money we don’t have and giving the bill to our kids!”
-          “This national debt is unsustainable!”
-          “Enough government spending!”
-          “Let’s take care of our problems at home before trying to take care of problems elsewhere!”
-          “The Federal Reserve/Fractional Reserve system needs to go!”

      They had a point. We keep borrowing money from a private corporation – the Federal Reserve – which simply prints it. We keep borrowing money from other nations, with absolutely no plan on paying it back. And we spend it frivolously, on things like corporate bailouts, unneeded wars, and a host of other things the American people are generally opposed to. Since 1913, the Fractional Reserve system has wrecked homes, businesses, and even entire countries through compound interest (c.f. Bechtel). Besides that, our spending is indeed unsustainable. “American Recovery Acts” can be passed over and over, but all these things do is delay the inevitable. Even the most ardent Obama supporter will have to admit that these economic recovery plans are not solutions but temporary band-aid fixes.

      If we want to see a real change, the Tea Partiers realized, there are a few fundamental issues we need to address.
   
      First, the “fractional reserve” banking system is a scam against everyone who participates in the financial world – which almost everyone must. I call it a scam because they charge interest on money that they alone create – so that the more money there is, the more is owed to them. This is why we’re REALLY in debt without end.

      Debt=slavery.  Besides that, they create the money out of nothing (“illegal consideration”) – which is technically illegal according to Jerome Daly vs Minnesota. This is the system our country and, through the IMF, the entire WORLD, operates on. The original Tea Partiers, like Ron Paul, wanted to eliminate this system. They wanted to audit and dismantle the Federal Reserve just as Andrew Jackson dismantled the Central Bank of his day (and warned “never again”). Governments and peoples should not be continuously sliding further and further in debt to a small group of unelected bankers.
   
      Second, the original Tea Party valued Free Market Capitalism, which means a fair market that self-regulates through competition. Sure they are for deregulation – something I have sort of a problem with – but they also recognized that it is not a “Free Market” if companies that abide by American standards are forced to compete against companies that don’t. American companies that must provide a decent wage and health care for their employees, manufacture here in America, and use American money for their overhead spend WAY more money than companies like Wal-Mart, who use Chinese money for their overhead yet get paid in American money. It’s sort of like playing “King of the Hill” against Mohammed Ali – sure, you can call it “competition,” but everybody knows better. Thus, the original Tea Party wanted to close our economic borders somewhat – it makes no sense to lose billions every year in trade deficits.

      Third, the original Tea Party recognized that the enormous amount of spending that goes to support the “Military-Industrial Complex” is completely unacceptable. In a Twilight Zone where a hammer costs $800, the American taxpayer is funding over 46% of the entire PLANET’S military spending! The closest ANY country comes to our military is China, at 6.6% of the world’s military spending. That’s right – six percent opposed to FORTY-SIX. Check it out.

      And where is all this money going, you ask? At a rate of over $8,000 per SECOND, our tax money is going to things like:

-          $800 hammers and other frivolous waste
-          Private contractors (mercenaries) such as Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.
-          Wars which do not make us safer but make our mercenaries EXTREMELY RICH
-          Funding “the enemies of my enemies” – in the past, this included funding for Saddam Hussein, the Shah in Iran, Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, a host of dictators in South America, and the list goes on and on.

      The original Tea Partiers recognized that this is horrible, wasteful, deceptive, murderous, and downright stupid behavior. And as part of their pledge to limit federal government, they pledged to stop this stuff.

      This is good stuff. You’d pretty much have to be a brainwashed lemming, or an out-and-out socialist, to not think so (my opinion).
         
      And now… enter Sarah Palin and her NeoConservative crowd. All the sudden this is the face of the Tea Party.

      Let me explain. It is INSANITY to say that NeoConservatives like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, Phil Gramm, and the Bushes are ANYTHING like “real conservatives” or libertarians like Ron Paul. They’re two very different animals. Trickle-down economics is NOT a conservative idea. Pre-emptive war is NOT a conservative idea. Neither is cutting taxes during war. Neither is expanding the money given to a corporatist military-industrial complex.

      Where the REAL Tea Party stands on these issues, the NeoConservatives who hijacked the movement are for the status quo. They are establishmentarians. See these two articles about how the base of the Tea Party is dissipating due to the shady politicians who have hijacked it.

http://firedoglake.com/2010/02/08/palin-drives-libertarians-out-of-tea-party/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/will-palin-and-the-neocon_b_456824.html

Here are examples.


-          The new Tea Party movement yells about “fiscal sanity,” yet they support the pre-emptive Iraq war and even want to fight Iran and Argentina regardless of the consequences (ever heard of the SCO?). While they ask for more money for the military-industrial complex, they ask for HUGE tax breaks. If they want fiscal sanity and reduced debt, how are they going to finance their warmongering?

-          The new Tea Party movement yells about a “Free Market,” yet they are not willing to close the trade deficits by enacting tariffs or doing anything meaningful about outsourcing. How are we going to have a “Free Market” in American if our competition is based in China?!

-          The new Tea Party movement yells about “unsustainable debt,” but they have no politices aimed at combating the Federal Reserve, IMF, or fractional reserve idea. How can we get out of debt when supporting a system that operates BASED ON DEBT? They talk a good talk, but how are they going to get us there?

*******

      Until there is a movement that is willing to make the STRUCTURAL changes we need, “Change” is an empty promise – whether you’re an Obama or a Palin. We’re not going to change a single meaningful thing by electing the Tea Party in November… we've got to the ROOT of the problem.

      Don’t let their empty slogans fool you. Many tea partiers mock Obama’s “Hope” and “Change” slogans as empty promises (WHAT change? HOW will you go about making this change?), but are somehow unable to see past their own slogans (WHAT government will shrink? Will you cut the military? HOW will you go about getting out of debt?). You’ll find these new Tea Party people have good goals but no ideas for how to get there.

      "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Stand on your principles, but make sure they're supported by facts. The end.

Why I believe in a "Supernatural"

Anybody who knows me knows I have categorically rejected religion, scriptures, and all attempts at explaining the unknown and unknowable. I’m writing this to explain why I haven’t rejected the idea of the supernatural. There’s a huge difference between a belief in a God and a belief in a Supernatural.

First things first - you need to know what the Cosmological argument is, as well as the idea of the Cosmological First Cause. The idea of a Cosmological first cause is something that has caused a lot of confusion in theology and science. It presents us with the biggest oxymoron in logic ever - logic versus physics.

Here is the Cosmological argument, in my own words:

1. Everything we know of is contingent on (caused by) something else.
2. If X causes Y, Y cannot also cause X.
3. What came first - the chicken or the egg? You can't have an infinite number of causes - it doesn't make sense.
4. Therefore, there must be a First Cause (that is not also an effect).

People use this logic to argue for the existence of God. There's a huge problem with this, though. Cause and effect reasoning leads us to have no answer for "which came first - the chicken or the egg?" What caused the chicken? The egg. What caused the egg? The previous chicken. What caused the previous chicken? The previous egg. On and on it goes, a problem with no end. This is referred to as "infinite regress," and most people agree that this is absurd.

Most people also agree that there can't be a "Cause" without an "Effect." What caused the gases that caused the big bang? No explanation - they were just somehow "always there." That's not a very good answer. But on the other hand, what caused God? No explanation - "He" was just somehow "always there." That isn't a very good answer - it's a cop-out on both fronts.

Thus the idea of a Cosmological first cause - a "prime mover" - is absurd. How can something in a cause-and-effect relationship have no cause? It makes no sense.

Physics, however, tells us it had to start SOMEWHERE. There's a chain of causes and effects in place, and something must have started it.

1. Physics, even including chaos theory, proves cause and effect relationships.
2. Physical cause/effect = change.
3. "Something" never comes from "Nothing.” There must be something to change. Therefore there must be an "Original."

See the problem? In order for us to exist, there must have been an "Original." But the "Original" is logically impossible... therefore, it is “impossible” that we exist. Existence as we know it - predication, cause/effect - is absurd. Existence SHOULD be impossible.

Yet here we are. What's going on here!?

Now I'm going to make a bit of a leap and walk a very fine line with equivocation to make my point. This is my argument for the existence of a “supernatural.”

1. Our epistemology - that is, how we know what we know - is based on our experience in the natural world.
2. Therefore our logical arguments are limited to making sense in the "natural world" - in other words, our logic is bound by the nature of the "natural world."
3. Finite explanations (cause and effect) can’t explain existence (you get infinite regress – the endless “chicken/egg, chicken/egg,” etc.).
4. The “natural” can only provide finite explanations.
5. Therefore what is “natural” cannot explain existence.
6. Since we exist and what is natural cannot explain it, there must exist a “supernatural.”

And of course, a belief in “A supernatural explanation of some sort” is a far cry for a belief in “A Supreme Being with a personality.” But that’s another story.

At any rate, this is why I believe in the supernatural. Basically it’s an argument against ontological/philosophical naturalism. Now, I like this argument; but I wonder if there is some sort of equivocation between “the natural” and “our understanding of the natural.” I put it this way because I’m referring to “the natural” only in terms of predication/cause-and-effect. Since we’re looking for a cause, I think this argument/“equivocation” is valid. If anybody thinks there’s a problem with this argument, or has thoughts to add, I’d love to discuss it.