The Spirit of Freedom Foundation

The Spirit of Freedom Foundation | home

back to Related Links

Politics & Religion

by Rod Miller

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."

... Mohandas K. Gandhi

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. 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.

I believe politics and religion SHOULD be talked about ... without passion, and with open minds and tolerance of others ways of thinking. This is essential to understanding the world in which we live. Why? Because the American way of life, i.e., Freedom of Religion, is threatened by an ideology that advocates an official state-sponsored religion. As the world gets smaller (Don't let Al Gore hear about THAT), we must learn peaceful co-existence.

The issue of religion is at the heart of the problems of the world today. Islam combines religion and politics. I call it government by religion. In most respects, the civilized world separates the two.

I reject radical Islam and advocate the right of an individual to practice any religion freely and without harm ... or not to believe in God or religion if one so chooses. Heck, even atheists have a right to believe in what they don't believe.

A Christian Nation?

The United States of American was largely founded as a Christian nation. Our very way of life is replete with reminders of such and there are many instances where our government and Christianity are interwoven. This is under attack from many organizations such as the ACLU. While many of their arguments, though petty for the most part, appeal to my logical instincts, the large picture in my view is to let well enough alone. Change for the sake of change frequently leads to abuses and extends itself into unforeseen areas.

For instance, should America ever fall into a society without a dominant religion, chaos such as we see in Iraq and other countries would certainly prevail. The American experience confirms tolerance can work for all ... peacefully. It does for the most part, but please think about immigration and how religious bigots are entering the country at will. Yes, they are portrayed as 'peaceful' and God-fearing, but as their numbers increase so will their religious zeal. With that comes forced acceptance of their version of what God wants.

The Jewish population has been largely free to go about their lives. Christian 'tolerance'? Or our collective belief in the FIRST AMENDMENT? Whatever the reason, co-existence is proven ... and Christians insist that it be so. I like what Ben Stein had to say on CBS. His letter says it all. (A good read about how things should be!)

Then too, how about an abyss where there is no religion. Methinks atheists would delight in such an environment. But what would happen to fill the void. Aha, power-seeking politicians would fill the vacuum and their version of religion, in some convoluted form, would return. A vicious cycle as you can see.

My idea is simple. Why don't we, as in the people of the world, attempt to define 'God' and set forth a legal definition. Maybe a United Nation's Resolution could be passed calling for a religious 'cease fire.' A religious truce would perhaps stem violence in the name of God, while the lawyers sorted it all out as to just who God.

All religions would have representation. The scientists would have their say in the matter. Clerics would put in their two cents worth. Politicians could argue out of both sides of their mouths. Women could argue that God is a woman. ASIDE: Sometimes, I think God is a woman because a lot of common sense is missing. On the other hand, the world could stand a bit of tidying up. Not in the cleaning house sense before the female readers throw a fit, but in the sense that women have the organizational skills needed to get this house (The world) in order. They will throw out, but not carry, the trash and make the house (The world) livable.

Silliness, you say? Maybe? But think about it. When nearly any kind of transaction these days requires a butt-covering piece of paper called a contract, the lawyers are involved. And of course, to assure the understanding of the words used in the contract, a set of DEFINITIONS is included. After all, we need to understand what the meanings mean ... if you get my drift ... meanings such as what the definition of 'is' is.

Hell, that could keep everybody at some level of peace while the UN handles it.

And the rest of us can get some sleep for God's sake!

The Scientific Definition of Evolution

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That’s what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, “Merry Christmas” to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that’s a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking.

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?”

In light of recent events…terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he’s talking about. And we said OK.

Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with “WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.”

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it.. no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards.

Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

The Scientific Definition of Evolution (From Learn the Bible.com)

by Chris Wilhoit

To the scientific layperson the whole issue of naturalism and origins is contained in one word – evolution. In scientific speak, this is not so. In fact, I have noticed on a number of creation/evolution forums that believers are often derided for their lack of knowledge in this area, so I would like to clear up some things for believers.

Evolution, Strictly Speaking Evolution, in a strict scientific sense, deals only with the origin of species. Put another way, evolution can only be in effect once all the complicated self-replicating molecular machine systems that represent the foundation of cell technology are already in place. Evolution does not even address the origin of life. The “basic” mechanisms of evolution are gene mutation and natural selection. Obviously, without genes there can be no gene mutations. And without genes integrated in and acting upon living organisms competing for habitats, there can be no selection. The theory of evolution only deals with living creatures replete with sophisticated molecular components that make life as we know it possible.

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life How non-living matter became living matter is called abiogenesis. Biogenesis is life from life. Bio, meaning life, and genesis, meaning creation, or life creating life. By putting the “a” in front of it you are inferring the opposite - life from non-life. Abiogenesis is something not even addressed by evolutionary theory. It is interesting to note that all attempts to demonstrate how chemicals can combine to even form the protein building blocks for life have proved insurmountable. These building blocks are coded for in the DNA. Kind of a “chicken and the egg” kind of thing at the molecular level of biology. Of course demonstrating the chemical origin of the proteins essential for life seems simple in comparison to showing a naturalistic origin for the complex nanotechnology cell factories made up of proteins. If proving abiogenesis is compared to traveling the 250,000 miles to the moon, we have not moved even a fraction of an inch. So you see, even if evolution were true, and it is not, based on our current science today, the rise of living matter from non-living is a miracle in every sense of the word. Keep that in mind. The only thing that makes evolution intellectually appealing is the amazing capabilities of cells at the submicroscopic level. And the origin of this amazing super-miniaturized technology defies all attempts at naturalistic explanation.

The Big Bang Another common misconception is that the “big bang” is part of evolution. The big bang theory is a theory in and of itself. Just as evolution is a theory for the origin of the diversity of life (not origin of life), big bang is a theory about the origin of the cosmos. Big bang theory is so speculative, and so fraught with problems and inconsistencies, it boggles my mind they can even talk seriously about it. But interestingly enough, its introduction was actually a step in the right direction for creationists, for it puts forth that the universe had an origin in the past. Believe it or not, it was not until the early 1970's that the majority of cosmologist believed this. The “steady state model,” which contends the universe is eternal, was the generally accepted model for the universe before 1970.

Stellar Hypothesis Big bang theory speculates on the origin of the cosmos, but it does not attempt to explain the formation stellar objects. Just as evolution addresses the origin of the diversity of life, but not the origin of life, big bang addresses the origin of the cosmos, but not the origin of the structure of the cosmos. Stellar objects are all the different things that exist in the cosmos. Moons, planets, stars, quasars, black holes, nebulae, constellations, and galaxies are all examples of stellar objects. Simply put, the stellar hypothesis attempts to explain how these objects formed after all the matter in the universe was released in the big bang. You see, this wave front of matter flying out from the big bang must undergo a significant transformation to become the universe we see today. At night you will notice that the universe is mostly empty space. Probably 99.999% of the universe is empty, from what we can currently tell. This begs the question of how could matter dispersed in all directions from a big bang coalesce so tightly in a multitude of remote locations in the universe. Well, that is a problem isn’t it. But my point is, even the big bang does not attempt to explain the origin of the ordered cosmos in its entirety. It only states that “nothing” (believe it or not, that’s what they say) blew up and originated space-time and matter. The structure we see today is left up to other processes. These processes are even less well detailed than the grossly speculative big bang theory. For all practical purposes, even the big bang theory is miraculous in nature. Let alone the subsequent ordering of the material universe.

Naturalism in Science Now the intelligent layperson readily recognizes that the larger picture of naturalism in science is all about this concept of evolution. Things, whether they are living or non-living, are thought to become more organized, complex and diversified over time. Particles to people as it is often called, is the foundation of all secular science. But from a strict definitional standpoint, big bang, stellar hypothesis, abiogenesis, and evolution are all distinct from one another. They are each attempting to explain, from a standpoint of naturalism, their respective compartmentalized set of phenomena. While this seems like a minor issue, it is something that you will be derided for not knowing if you are engaged in a discussion with someone knowledgeable about these subjects. Hopefully this helps to clear things up a bit when addressing naturalistic viewpoints on origins.