Archive for the secularism Category

“St” Paul’s Curious Book of Romans

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, history, random, religion, secularism, theology on April 18, 2016 by chouck017894

“Saint” Paul is credited with formulating the language and systematizing of doctrines of Christian theology.  His epistles are claimed to have been written to congregations of the outlying churches he is said to have founded, and these communications dealt with theology, church procedures and discipline.  The uncertain time of his birth, given as “about 3 BCE”, and the alleged time of his death in the coliseum in Rome in 68 CE do not seem to fit snugly within that particular timeframe of all writings attributed to him–especially the book of Romans.

The New Testament book of Romans has an aura of a slightly later period–most likely c. 98-100 CE. But Paul, remember, is said to have died in 68 CE.  The Jesus cult that existed in that later 98-100 timeframe was then being vigorously directed toward regimented practice, and was being cunningly implemented among the poor, slaves, soldiers and misfits.  In the later historic events Marcus Ulpius Trajanus (Trajan) became emperor in 98, and the Jews in Palestine were once again rebelling against the Empire.  The content of the book of Romans does not fit in comfortably with known historic events of c. 60+ CE, but Paul from Corinth is nonetheless credited with the work which was put in place as the sixth text in theoretical chronological order of the Epistles.  The book of Romans is the longest of the “letters” supposedly written by Paul, and is the only one in which no companion or co-author is mentioned.  From this particular text Paul is credited with having formulated the language, doctrinal system and theology which then became the game plan for the Jesus cult after 100 CE.

The promotional line regarding this Christian organizer, doctrinaire and missionary is that Paul, a Jew from Tarsus, was on his way to Damascus in Syria to track down Jews who had abandoned Judaism and turned to the Jesus cult.  On his journey he is depicted as having experienced a remarkable phenomenon–a blinding light vision of the crucified Jesus.  The incident so traumatized him that he became a passionate servant.  This encounter, which had no verifying witnesses, has an eerie similarity to Moses getting God’s message from a burning bush.

The book of Romans is described as being in seven parts, exclusive of the introduction.  The tenor of the first parts is the crafty establishment of intimidation with the theme put forth that the whole world (meaning the Roman world) stands guilty before the Creator God.  Everything which then follows is like a concentrated sales pitch for the faith system that was being completely restructured in that 100 CE timeframe and which spells out the terms for the offer which amounts to little more than a contract for salvation insuranceT

The book of Romans, like the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, seems jarringly out of place with the general flow of the story line.  Indeed, many who read the NT find themselves wondering about contradiction in Romans in regard to what Jesus is depicted as teaching in the earlier Gospel texts (Mark and Matthew).  Whether this epistle was written in c. 60 or 100 CE, the writer claims that he had never visited the Christian community in Rome although he had long desired to do so.  From chapter one, verse 18 onward, Paul deliberately stirs up fear and, quite unlike the peaceful Jesus of earliest books who he allegedly honored, Paul launches into comments on the “wrath of God”!   The pattern is thereby set in place for passing judgement upon God’s intended diversity of life and Paul then fondles his ego with self-righteousness.  Even stranger, the assertions made in Romans actually contradict much of what is included in other letters attributed to him, such as in Corinthians, Thessalonians, Galatians, Colossians and Ephesians.  Chapter nine, for example, denies free will.  Chapter ten distorts the claim of salvation.  Chapter thirteen actually justifies rulers, even the wicked ones, as being divinely infallible, and as serving as “ministers of God.”   There is an un-Gospel flavor to the book of Romans which carries an audacious power-based inflection that is more in character with Roman Empire ideology.

Remembering the Jewish insurgency during the 98-100 CE timeframe, there is sly warning behind the author’s alleged holy assertions in chapter thirteen of Romans, as mentioned.  Here is what is said:  “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be ordained by God.  2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves  damnation.  3)  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.  Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  4)  For he (implying any ruler, king, etc.) is the minister of God to thee for good.  But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not a sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Keep in mind the Jewish problem to Rome in 98-100 timeframe when reading the rest of this Pauline propaganda.  5) “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.  6) For this cause pay ye tribute also; for they (the rulers) are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.  7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to who tribute is due; custom to who custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

At this point in this empirical-political spiel, anxiety is then craftily directed to the Ten Commandments as though those directives accented the claims just made for honoring the political top dog.  By these verses, which proclaim that “all rulers are ordained by God,” the hellish action of such “rulers” as Attila, Hitler, Anytolya Kamanni, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. can be excused as “ministers of God.”

Strangely, as noted here, the book of Romans presents strong contradictions to the earlier teachings that Jesus was portrayed as teaching, and the book of Romans account is not exactly in “perfect flow and harmony” with other Gospels as it is accepted by naive believers.  For example, condemnation and practiced hatreds was not a message in the earliest Mark-Matthew books of the Christian movement.

Christians of today should give pause to remember that it is an absolute certainty that “St” Paul could never have read what we know as the canonical Gospels.  However, if Paul was indeed a real person, Saul/Paul of Tarsus would likely have been familiar with the Gnostic texts from which the general ideas conveyed in the Gospels originated.  Pagan and Gnostic influences color the whole of Paul’s literary works.  And the “letters” credited to Paul are more properly defined as preachments of the newly manufactured doctrine than defined as actual correspondence.

As with the attraction of the ancient mystery schools which flourished in the earlier and general timeframe of Paul, Paul did not preach of a physical Jesus as being Christ: rather the point of the Pauline approach was in regard to the attainment of Christhood, meaning the deified consciousness which must evolve within each individual.  As Christianity is widely accepted and practiced today, however, such personal attainment is made nearly impossible to achieve.  The inference which lingers in what has become traditional Christian practice is that one’s consciousness can achieve deified status only through delegated representatives (priests, preachers, pastors, ministers, etc).  Rightfully, the purpose of any faith system should be to guide seekers in developing principled qualities throughout each person’s life.  However, that noble goal is not achievable when faith systems are persistently used as discriminatory indulgences for material power plays.  Finding “sin” in everyone else but finding little in yourself makes for easy fertilizer to use in a hierarchical faith system, but it only nourishes such things as ignorance, poverty, egocentric disdain for life diversities, unremitting warfare, etc. etc.  Such is not the avowed “narrow path” into higher consciousness.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Faith vs Reality

Posted in belief, enlightenment, faith, life, logic, random, religion, secularism, theology, thoughts with tags , , on February 1, 2016 by chouck017894

Reality–the everyday problems which are experienced in this dimension of limited energy which we call life–is not being well served when believers are assured that Creation’s laws can be set aside if only you believe in a certain belief system manner. The universe would implode into nothingness if exceptions were allowed for a certain chosen or saved few to bypass Creation’s laws.  Scientific truth is being ignored when such egocentric beliefs are being marketed as ego stimulants, for the higher truth is that every identity within Creation stands accountable for itself.  The creative laws responsible for the universe cannot be sidestepped or patched over by man-invented rites and ritual or ceremony.  The Heaven and Paradise so fervently yearned for by faith system seekers can never be gained by practicing disrespect for the diversity and variety of other life forms or life styles which share this temporary passage through this limited energy field we speak of as matter.

Faith, the kind that does not rest on logic or open to acceptance of studies of powers invisible to us, is pretty much an inherited thing passed down from the parents and/or society, and it habitually lumbers under the mantle of some faith system which has evolved while its promoters have unethically pursued worldly ambitions.  Unfortunately their drive is to prove to the world that some man-contrived institutionalized faith system is the only way that a person can storm the Creator’s Heaven: That only signals that the bottom line for that promoted faith system rests entirely in this world, not in any higher realm.

Pretending that cosmic powers aid only some particular man-made faith system in extending control over this material world’s tribulations is tragically misleading.  Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity whom they claim to represent be directly dependent upon militant actions of mere man to fulfill that all-powerful deity’s wishes?  That illogical assertion is not consistent with the all-inclusive capabilities claimed for that imagined deity.  The escape propaganda used to get around this theological flaw is the claim that such strong arm devotional indulgences are necessary to “test” the believers’ devotion.  That really answers nothing, for why would an omniscient (all knowing) being ever find it necessary to “test” anything that he/she/it had created?  The only reason for such a hot air claim rests in the ego-driven greed of the “spiritual shepherds: for exercising authority, not to provide any genuine spiritual enlightenment for seekers.

The three highly organized major faith systems of the western world’s cultures–faith systems which are all fragmented by schisms–have each been structured by priest or prophet authors upon a not too subtle prejudice against the bearing principle (considered feminine) that is within the Source which is necessary for life multiplication.  This self-serving and cowardly propaganda has been set in place to “put the blame on woman” in an attempt to absolve the engendering principle within Source (considered male) from all the error and sin in the world.  This propaganda that the creative action which is necessary for bearing forth of matter form is somehow the cause of man’s woes is glaringly antagonistic with the man-is-superior assertion that the male authors penned. It is “holy” guidance such as this of godly approval of inequity that has contributed heavily to mankind’s seemingly endless wars and atrocities.

If the Omniscient power, personified and characterized as a male deity, finds that he/she/it must “test” his/her/its creations for worthiness that divine inclination for questioning any created object or event should be fully acceptable as a human characteristic if we are, as claimed, made in his image.  It is peculiar, therefore, that man-fashioned faith systems tend to abhor questions–especially so in regard to any question concerning their claims of divine authority.  To seriously question the powers-that-be of that faith system can make for some disquieting  conclusions.  One logical conclusion is that only con artists write religious rituals and rites and ceremonies.  That is provable because no one else like you or I really need such crafted public theatrical indulgences to experience personal connection to the all-embracing power in which we exist.  Rites and  ritual and ceremony serve the spiritual pretenders, however, as a means of exercising authority through inflicting a kind of intellectual tyranny which asserts that they and they alone represent what can only be imagined as some Divine Avenger.  That implied avenger conjures up what can only be called superstition which is fleshed out with liberal doses of the supernatural.  This is the intentional crucifixion of rationality nailed upon duplicity.  In that methodology reason is intentionally dishonored for the benefit of theologies.

Despite their implied intimacy with the Creator, true spiritual instruction remains mysteriously nebulous within the tons of man-authored texts which dare to pretend to teach spiritual qualification.  With these texts seekers are taught to reject the varieties and diversities of life expressions, to dismiss any differing way of expressing spiritual consciousness, and to install within themselves a devotion to man-crafted prejudices, bigotry, hatreds, and their religious inspired massacres and wars.  The unifying power that underlies the entire universe and its diversity is totally ignored for the self-imposed illusion fashioned by EGO for imagined exclusiveness with the Creator of that diversity.

 

 

Mass Distractions

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, culture, faith, gay culture, Government, history, life, politics, random, religion, secularism, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , on March 1, 2011 by chouck017894

Every year just prior to the beginning of the new U.S. Supreme Court term, the ceremony known as the Red Mass is played out in Washington D.C. in the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle.  And naturally the Catholic Diocese sends out invitations to the President, Vice President, the Supreme Court justices, and any other dignitaries that the church hopes to influence.

The Red Mass, first conducted in the early 1950s, is so-called because the officiating clergy wear red vestments to conduct the mass.  In that early 1950s timeframe the Catholic bishops were frothing at the mouth over the Supreme Court which, in 1947, had ruled unanimously in support of the clear separation of church and state.  (The case was Everson v. Board of Education.)  In addition, in 1948, the Catholic bishops had waxed indignant over the Supreme Court ruling that struck down a religious instruction course being imposed in public schools in Champaign, Illinois.  That, the clergy huffed, was “…the shibboleth of doctrinaire secularism.”  So, to show their displeasure with the rulings, the clergy donned their red costumes to indulge in a pretense of divine insight. 

Of course the annual Red Mass event is now propagandized by the church hierarchy as simply a traditional religious observance.  The noble intention, they say, is to beseech God to guide the administration in dispensing justice for the nation.  How God is expected to guide the dignitaries in attendance is usually broadly implied in how the Red Mass “observance” is conducted. 

Back in October of 2010, for example, Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl practically slobbered a welcome greeting upon the Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts.  And the Associate Justices, Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—all devoted Catholics, and all Republican nominated—were each publicly praised for attending.  These five men happen to be of one assertive faith system, and happen to hold five of the nine benches of the U.S. Supreme Court: hardly a representation of diversity in a government that is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  The attention lavished upon these five justices at that 2010 Red Mass contradicted the so-called “traditional religious observances” that they were claimed to be, for the affair was a brash attempt to inject their religious philosophy into government, laws and sectarian doctrine.

The pompous affair was simply religious business as usual, for this has been the routine since that 1950 red-costumed circus.  The Red Mass provides the bishops with a captured audience, which in the case of the present Catholic dominated Supreme Court make for the opportunity to cajole five of the nine justices toward the Catholic faith system’s position on various issues.

From that 1950s feigned respect for the higher Source, the bishops then began to lobby for government aid to parochial schools.  In other words, they wanted tax money taken from diverse people who did not subscribe to the Catholic faith system to be utilized to pay for teaching Catholic beliefs!  From there the “holy” representatives then launched into sermons which opposed government allowance for abortion.  And today this is only one of the oppressive and hateful demands that Religious Right zealots are attempting to impose upon the widely diverse people that make up our democratic nation. 

Considering the amazing diversity that is displayed throughout all Creation, it seems highly unlikely that the creative power responsible for it all would find any reason to force any particular man-invented faith system upon the rest of Creation. 

The Constitutional advice of church and state separation was born of divine insight.  Many of the Founding Fathers of our democratic form of government had traveled to Europe, studied the history of other nations, and noted how governments inevitably sank into oppressive exploitation of citizens when dominated by religious factions.  The understanding that the church and state must stand apart if all citizens are to remain free is the major difference upon which the United States of America rose to greatness.  Separation of church and state was never meant to dishonor a higher Source, nor did it advocate the separation of law from morality.  The higher concept expressed in the Constitution that every person shares an equal playing field in their mortal existence is not a moral principle that religious tyrants choose to understand.

  • Related post: U. S. Supreme Court Set Trap for Democracy, December 2010.

The Theory of God

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, culture, faith, freethought, humanity, life, logic, random, religion, secularism, thoughts with tags , , , on May 25, 2010 by chouck017894

For many millennia apprehensive seekers have theorized the existence of God as an intellectual being and credited him with the creation of everything.  From the most primitive of times it has been routine for the god-theorists to exploit that hypothesis as the certification of their executive status.  In that capacity the self-blessed executives exercised religious/political authority over the docile, less imaginative multitude.  However, as humankind has evolved through the last couple of centuries with the technological ability to uncover the basic principles at work as Creation, there still has been no confirmation of an omniscient being having initiated it all.  It should not be considered disrespectful for humankind to use its evolved intellect to seek a definitive testimonial as to the theorized existence of a Supreme Being who is claimed to play the central role in the creation and operation of the universe, and in the continuance of human lives.  A theory, no matter how ego-gratifying, is something that lacks verification. 

Consider: a theory is the systematic organization of things observed and which seem applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances; especially a system of assumptions regarding principles and rules of procedure that have been devised to analyze, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a given set of phenomenon.  A hypothesis is an assertion that is subject to verification or proof; a proposition accepted as a basis of reasoning; a premise from which a conclusion is drawn; a conjecture that accounts for a set of beliefs that are yet to be undisputedly proven.

Through many millennia the more reality-based seekers have studied the heavens (astronomy), the physical attributes of animate creatures (biology), the soil levels of Earth (geology), and even the interaction between energy and matter (physics) seeking evidence, regardless how meager, that a Creator-being exists.  Not only have these labors failed to find clues that might support such a theory, but their attention to details has openly confirmed that the energy manifestation which is spoken of as Creation was not a process that occurred by some predetermined design.  Indeed, their research demonstrates that the universe and everything in it trundles along as a self-amassed energy involvement. 

Genuine wisdom suggests that humanity would be much more morally advanced by embracing rationality rather than ego-gratifying pretense of exclusiveness with some unproven supernatural being that is at the heart of religious posturing.  Near-divine potential could be accomplished throughout the human adventure by simply recognizing that tolerance extended to the extensive diversity of energy manifestations would diminish the bulk of mankind’s painful conflicts.  The secret for experiencing such a secular heavenly state is to simply abandon the religion-taught habit of searching for personal meaning an a faraway external supernatural entity and direct attention properly to finding your internal connection with the universe.

Pretense of Piety

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Christianity, culture, enlightenment, faith, history, life, politics, random, religion, secularism, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , on February 16, 2010 by chouck017894

Religious proselytizing is a special type of propaganda.  From at least the early 1960s in the United States there has been a virtual epidemic of this type of pseudo holiness.  The spread of this affliction has been a carefully plotted pattern of contamination by those who recognized the material profits and worldly power that was to be had by injecting people’s psyches with holy fears of being rejected by the Source and sustainer of all diverse life.

Through the last couple of decades of the twentieth century each person’s personal beliefs about how they are to respect the creative life force has been artfully deformed into a political cause that dares assert that their selected belief systems should have free access to tax money collected from all diverse people to practice their religious brand of discrimination.  “Faith-based” is a deceptive moniker chosen to proclaim their delusions of exclusive access to an indifferent creative force, and is nothing more than propaganda rhetoric.  Even today, a decade into the 21st century, sectarian lobbies shamelessly seek the political clout to force all U. S. citizens to live under their narrow, man-invented theological regulations.  How militaristic maneuvering for earthly power is a soul-saving operation for a loving omnipotent Creator fails to compute as spiritual integrity.

Think this claim of religious politicizing is farfetched?  In November 2009 a coalition of extremist evangelicals and Roman Catholic bishops met to pound out a 4,700 page document they called “Manhattan Declaration,” with the pretentious subtitle, “A Call of Christian Conscience.”  Of course it is implied that the arrogant political demands framed in the document were God-directed, with God supposedly recommending public policies that covered such things as marriage rights, reproductive rights, what is to be accepted as proper sexual magnetism, and other niceties.  These representatives of a proclaimed loving God backed up their holiness by declaring they would ignore any democratic-flavored laws that they did not like.  They, and no one else, had heard God’s shrill trumpet—or “clarion call”—for strict regimentation in conduct of life’s diversity that would please him. 

So extreme and devious are these types of hierarchical “faith” systems that they dare to self-promote their spiritual selfishness as “a promotion of human dignity.”  And, by God,  they will seek to wipe out anyone who disagrees with them!

The Preamble of this bloated Declaration begins with the statement that…”Christians are heirs of a 2,000 year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, the oppressed and suffering.”  The interpretation of Christian history that follows this whitewash then lingers only on the sparse times when Christian practitioners happened to actually rise above the very offenses they say that they denounce.  True history shows that justice was not exactly a Christian concern in the formative years of the movement: they were more rebels, criminals and agitators than law-abiders.  The tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church indulged in justice by “reaching out with the compassion” that is known as the Inquisition when millions of defenseless souls were tortured and killed for not measuring up to church demands. 

The document sidesteps all the many gory pages of their religious practices by saying, “While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages…” they then quickly claim Christianity to have been the only source that “defended innocent  life”!  If this document is taken as truth, only Christians have been responsible for any advances in human welfare and care in the world. 

To borrow words from the Manhattan Document, “…consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues…” that you pompously trumpet.  You have no right whatsoever to make demands on the diverse expressions of life that you dare to judge.  What you pretend is spiritual enlightenment amounts to little more than masturbation of your ego.

Grab Our Profits

Posted in Atheist, culture, Government, history, life, medical, politics, random, secularism, thoughts with tags , , , , , , on December 21, 2009 by chouck017894

Health care for the nation’s citizens has been vigorously opposed by the Republicans for decades, but perhaps never have they stooped quite so low as through the 2009 drive by the Democrats to assure citizens security in the face of costly illness.  They had opposed Medicare, for example, but now claim, falsely, that extending health care to all citizens would deprive the elderly of Medicare benefits.  The truth is that far too many of those “public servants” standing in opposition to Health Care with public option have been happily raking in loads of cash for their congressional seats from big insurance corporations.  And from Big Finance, and Big Oil, and Big Pharmacy too.

The hard-line Republicans have a long record against adhering to ethical forms of regulations and controls that were once in place to keep a level playing field for all citizens and businesses.  Slowly and surely the heavily financed GOP (Grab Our Profits) crowd chipped away at the principled regard for the little man in favor of the conniving schemers and greedy corporations.  The 2008-2009 economic collapse and the $700,000,000,000 (seven hundred billion) taxpayer-funded bailout for the Wall Street crowd is directly traceable to their devotion to end all controls and regulations that once protected homeowners, taxpayers and the national budget.

In this regard the United States can truly be termed a “Christian nation,” for the whole principle of that faith is that someone else will pay the end-price for you.  Is it simply bald coincidence that as right-wing religionists squirmed into political influence through the late 1970s and early 1980s that the democratic principles upon which the U.S. was built began to noticeably slide downhill?  Noted in Time Frames and Taboo Data: Reagan’ first official act after assuming office as President of the United States in 1981 was to terminate oil price controls, asserting it would boost America’s oil exploration and production.  But in the years of Reagan’s reign the “conservatives” never managed to find the waste, fraud and abuse that they had always claimed had been the hallmarks of liberal government.  Subtle shifts did occur, however, and with Ronald Reagan’s election the war on poverty had been quietly and quickly shifted to a war on the poor.

By 1992 the extreme radical religionists announced publicly, “We want…as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996.”  By 1995 Congress was manipulated by their cohorts into stripping victims of shady businesses of their right to recover their losses from those businesses!  And by 1996 the Christian Right had finally managed to gain full control of the GOP at the Republican Convention.  Through the next few years evangelical fanatics wormed their way into Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive Branches—all the while corruption and unethical behavior was flourishing, reaching its apex in the election process that brought born-again G. W. Bush the presidency in 2000.

Led by this self-proclaimed god-favored crowd the nation was blessed with an illegal war, and the likes of Big Oil, Big Pharmacy, and Big Finance manipulating more and more of government policy through the disgraceful practice called “lobbying” for favors for the corporations and the rich.  In other words, an undemocratic system that is nothing more than legalized bribery.  Since 1998, for example, the “financial service” industry has spent over $5 billion in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses.  How many lives could that money have saved if it had only been used in genuine spiritual compassion?

Sinning Against Democratic Principles

Posted in Atheist, belief, Christianity, culture, Government, history, humanity, Inspiration, naturalism, politics, random, religion, secularism, thoughts, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 27, 2009 by chouck017894

Genuine freedom for everyone, as the US Constitution proclaims, certainly is not being served by persons who seek to bring down the Founding Fathers’ ideals of governing, which wisely stressed separation of church and state.  Nor should the right of free speech be twisted into a perverse interpretation that it is a license to proselytize to captive audiences of school students as the overly vocal bloc of Christian radicals, such as the noble-sounding Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), have chosen to interpret it.  This Christian rightwing legal affiliation has trained more than nine hundred lawyers in the art of sidestepping tolerance and compassion for any who may live or believe differently than they.

 If the idea that religious fanatics can influence the US Supreme Court sounds impossible, think again.  Since 1995 the Supreme Court has been leaning more and more toward passing judgments that threaten to undermine the safeguard of separation of church and state as championed by our nations’ Founding Fathers.

It all began with the landmark case Rosenberger vs. the Regents of the University of Virginia.  The charge brought forth by the so-called Alliance Defense Fund was that secular clubs were funded through student activity fees, but the fees were not available to fund religious student groups.  This shameless jargon used by the ADF to cause the Supreme Court to deviate from the Establishment Clause* was due to the fact that the university could not by law appear to endorse any particular religion—thus the ADF howled “viewpoint discrimination”!  (*Establishment Clause: one of two “religion clauses” of the First Amendment.)

 Since the religious radicals got their foot through the door, the Catholic dominated Supreme Court has bowed to the mythology of those claiming to be “victimized Christians,” and the  court has continued to deviate from earlier and wiser precedence and has leaned toward the “reasoning” that if secular clubs were funded but not religious proselytizing groups, then discrimination was present!

The irony of the very ones who so actively and loudly promoted discrimination against diverse lifestyles standing up and claiming to be victims of discrimination would be amusing if it wasn’t such a dangerous act of hatred and psychic terrorism.  They hide behind the trumped up claim that they are “biblically compelled” to condemn various groups; homosexuals, for example.  They like to use the Bible as their permission from god to indulge themselves in orgiastic hatred and intolerance.  In regard to same-sex appeal, discrimination is stirred up by using a half sentence verse of Romans (1:27); “…And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

 First, let us note that, as it is stated, woman was regarded as nothing more than an outlet to be used for man’s sexual release.  The line in question was not a religious directive and not reallly spiritual condemnation so much as simply reflecting the social etiquette of Rome c.100 CE, the time of the book of Romans‘ composing, the authorship of which has never been satisfactorily determined.  In addition, endless translations of “holy word” have not insured accuracy of what the verse-twisters like to allege.

Diversity is highly respected in the energy-mechanism of Creation, for it is only through an unlimited spectrum of life expression that the Source is made absolute and omniscient.  To pretend otherwise, as radical religionists do, is true irreverence, for such hostile opposition to the natural diversity expressed in life in the guise of religious superiority is not reflected anywhere else in Nature or the universe.  That odious pretense of favoritism radiates chiefly around the endless parade of self-appointed mouthpieces of god.  They may build their earthly power structures and influence by fanning indulgence in bigotry, but it remains highly unlikely that the ladder to Heaven is outfitted with rungs of hatred.