Freedom of Religion is Not a Mandate For Religion

Evangelical's Goal:  An American Church-run State?

Evangelical’s Goal: An American church-run State?

 Religious freedom is a term that the Christian Taliban is throwing around by the bucketful lately. The problem is that they use it to justify a desire to inflict their religious beliefs on everyone else. They claim that if they are not allowed to force others to follow their mythological ideology of controlling women’s health choices, defining love and marriage, and replacing science with stupidity, then their religious freedoms are being restricted.

However, religious freedom is exactly opposite of what many Evangelicals believe. The First Amendment to our Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

It’s the first ten words that are skipped over by Evangelicals. They focus on the next six words and claim that the Constitution says they can do whatever they please, including forcing non-believers to be subject to and abide by their mythological beliefs, but the first ten words clearly indicate that establishment of a religion (a set of mythological beliefs) is forbidden.

The brilliance of the Constitution is that it protects the individual, not the group, which prevents the United States of America to serve all people, and prevents rule by a Christian lynch mob.

Advertisements

The Sympathy Strategy

Pit-y, pit-ee: See dog in back of pickup

Pit-y, pit-ee: See dog in back of pickup

175°  Today I saw a dog on a short leash in the back of a pickup. The dog was resting his(?) head on the side of the pickup bed and he looked pitiful. Everything about this dog said, “My master has abandoned me here, I’m sad, do you have any treats?”

Humans, most humans, have a great capacity to respond to perceived unfairness. It is a useful tool for those who seek to manipulate other people. People who create problems have learned that if they disguise the problem that they have created as a response to an injustice, then they can gain the sympathy of others.

This week in Colorado, a conservative candidate for Governor said that State funds were being used for abortions. Of course, if you can suggest that a child is the victim, you get extra sympathy points. As it turns out, his statement was a lie and he had no proof to offer. He was just using the sympathy strategy to gain support.

Of course, I question the statement in the first place. So what if State funds are used for abortions. Doctors perform abortions and they are more qualified to make medical decisions. The last I checked this was not the Catholic United States of America, so a religious opinion does not qualify as a limitation of people who don’t believe in that opinion.