Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

Throw him over the side of a cliff

September 14, 2009

Sept. 4, 2009

By David Farside

I received an interesting e-mail from a fellow Tribune columnist. He didn’t agree with my criticism of religious right-wing conservatives. In last week’s column, I accused them of using the political arena to convert everyone to Christianity’s antiquated biblical morals. I suggested they use the pulpit for conversion and leave their intolerance of personal freedom, equality, expression and choice out of politics.

I quoted an Argentina Supreme Court ruling, decriminalizing the possession of marijuana. They defended their Constitution, stating that it “protected the private actions of individuals who in no way offend order or morality, or harm a third party, who answer to God free from a judges authority.” They said their decision protected the privacy of adults who are responsible for their own conduct.

I suggested the conservatives should take note and protect, rather than destroy, the private actions and individual rights of pro choice adults who are answerable to their own personal God and not judge’s of Republican authority.

In the e-mail, this candidate claims the “whole idea of equality” derived from the religious types of the “far right.” If that is the case, why is it they don’t believe in the equality for people not of their ilk?

They discriminate against people who have a sexual preference different from theirs. They discriminate against women who exercise their personal choice for an abortion. They discriminate against women who want to become a priest in the male dominated hierarchy of their own churchdom. And, I believe that for many years Mormon-owned or controlled companies would only hire Mormons because the church was guaranteed its 10 percent tithe. I know this because I was fired from Milne Truck lines in Las Vegas in 1959 because I would not convert to its religious philosophy. They replaced me with a fellow Mormon.

He goes on to infer the far right religious types were involved in the crusades against slavery. Some of them may have been, but most of the Southern Christians were opposed to the abolition because they were the ones who owned the slaves. The Christians in the North wanted abolition, not because of equality issues, but because they needed cheap labor for their new industrial revolution.

Under the Christian control of the White House and local government, the freed slaves were not allowed to vote, were denied education, received less for their labor than whites and were forced to live in over-crowed conditions. They starved in the streets of the big cities and if they even looked at a white woman they were given a quick lesson in the Christian hypocrisy of freedom, tolerance and equality.

Concerning abortion, he asks, “Why do you see (abortion) as exclusively a woman’s right?” I never suggested it was an exclusive right, especially if she is married. However, if the woman is single and left to raise the newborn alone without the support of the father, it should be the woman’s personal and moral choice to have an abortion, not the church or the state. Our Supreme Court guaranteed that choice in its 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision.

The Christians believe in Plato’s fantasy of punishment and reward for our actions after death. In his “Republic,” Plato describes his illusion of heaven, hell and purgatory.

The Catholics added the state of limbo to their after-life punishment. They believe everyone was born in original sin because Eve listened to a talking snake and ate some kind of a magical apple in the Garden of Eden. If an infant dies before its emersion in holy water, removing the curse of sin, it is confined in Limbo and undergo some kind of punishment for a sin it didn’t commit. Sounds like voodoo superstition to me.

On the other hand, Christians also believe that we were created to make decisions using our own volition, acknowledging the fact that their God created us to be free to make personal choices and we are individually responsible for our own fate in eternity. They seem to really be confused about their own dogma.

Finally, in the last statement of the e-mail, he says that I should compare the positive contributions of Christian actions demanding higher moral standards and social treatment of the handicapped with the atheistic action of communism in the 20th Century. And then referring to me specifically (knowing that I am handicapped) he says, “In ancient Sparta you would have been tossed over a cliff and into the ocean. Just some food for thought.” He should be aware that Homer was blind and Epectitus was crippled; they seemed to survive. He should also be reminded that I am handicapped by circumstance, while some politicians choose to be mentally handicapped by choice.

But here is some food for thought for our local right-wing columnist. Although your higher moral standards for society should include the Christian philosophy of the Sermon on the Mount, they don’t. Your so-called 20th Century atheistic communist rulers were the ones who established programs to feed the hungry, give shelter to those in need and administer heath care to the sick. Yes, it’s called welfare. And every time the liberal leaders in government want to raise your taxes or tithe to support these Christian values, it’s always the right-wing conservative Christians who raise the most hell. Why? It must be that mentally handicapped thing again.

So, should this fellow columnist be thrown off the side of a political cliff by the readers? I hope so.