Last time, I mentioned the Freedom
From Religion Foundation, whose tagline is “Protecting the constitutional
principle of the separation of state and church.” I value the separation of
state and church – even though it is not a constitutional principle; the
Constitution only says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it never
says that state and church must be separated.
The idea of “separation” comes from a letter that Thomas
Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802:
"Believing with you that
religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes
account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers
of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with
sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation
between Church and State."
And herein lies my intellectual quarrel with the
FFRF: it seems to be quite religious in opposing religion. It declares freedom
from religion, but its words and actions seem very religious. Consider the
following evidence:
1. FFRF’s
tagline sounds like a creed. But it’s not based on historical reality; it’s a
canon of faith, declaring “separation of state and church” constitutional even
though it is not. The tagline is more emotional/religious than
intellectual/cognitive.
2. FFRF’s website states, “The history of Western
civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought
about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for
prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of
capital punishment, for women’s right to vote, for death with dignity for the
terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and
abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end
to slavery.” That paragraph is so full of historical errors that I hardly know
where to start. History records that most of the “social and moral progress”
cited was introduced by the people of God – disciples of Jesus (which is what
this blog is all about). I’m content to allow FFRF to take credit for the “right
to right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion,” because Christ
values life in all its forms, as do Christ followers. What I want you to see in
this quotation is FFRF’s emotional, fanatical, religious devotion to a canon of
faith.
Well,
that’s enough of that. No use wasting an entire blog entry “bashing” somebody.
I only want to point out the irrational nature of a group that claims to be
completely rational. They religiously reject religion.
And
I reject religion, too! See my
last post for a brief explanation. For an example of the kind of danger
produced by religion, watch this short
video of Katie, who describes herself as “an out of the closet atheist.” Part
of her testimony is heartbreaking; she says, “When I was in grade school I had
to go [to church] five days a week and once on the weekends.” And I say, “NO
WONDER she turned her back on Christ!” As a young child, she was not introduced
to Jesus, she was introduced to religion – and it had a deleterious effect on
her. This is only one example of why I reject religion.
And
I can’t think of any better stance to take than that taken by Jefferson Bethke
in his popular YouTube video, “Why I Hate
Religion, But Love Jesus.” He says it all. Amen, brother!
Love
Jesus. Love people. Reject religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment