On Going Too Far

Yesterday I posted a blog in which I mentioned scholarly question about the historicity of the New Testament version of a man called Jesus.  At the end of the day I received in my mail for the day, among the many letters I receive daily from organizations, of many kinds, from all over the country asking for my financial support for their particular worthy cause,1 one that gave me a moment's pause, that turned into outright anger; and simultaneously gave me a desire to clarify where I stand regarding the former matter, of questioning the foremost western religion. - or any religion, for that matter.  

The letter was regarding an apparent push by atheistic groups - and the ACLU, in their zealous pursuit of 'the separation of church and state' - to stop the marking of veterans' graves with the symbol of their faith.  What?! I thought, incredulous.  Knowing that various groups were already involved in putting the kibosh on such things as school and public displays of  Christmas manger scenes, I am not a stranger to such shenanigans.  But there is such a thing as going too far.  My instant response to the letter was to wish a message to such cultural-trashing perpetraitors along these lines:

'If you don't like this business of marking a military service person's grave with a symbol of their faith, or on a war memorial itself - that is to say, an historical monument - why don't you go live in another country?  Why does the dog have to have its tail wag it??  This cultural custom is a mark of respect, and even religious ritual, more than just a courtesy, to those honored dead.  The nation thereby salutes its fallen protectors.  Deal with it, in yourself.  And either take your iconoclasm - i.e., your "radical atheist group's (attempts to) erase every public expression of our country's religious heritage" - elsewhere, or shove it up your nether regions.'   

I was quoting - within the quote marks; the concluding flourish was mine, and I hereby own it2 - from the letter, from former Congressman and retired Lt. Colonel Allen West (his correspondence on behalf of a group called the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation).  As he continued, in his letter letting the public know about this defacement project: "Is it too much for these fallen heroes to be honored with a symbol of their faith when they are laid to rest?"  Apparently for some, er, Americans.  He goes on; "After all, belief in 'one nation, under God' is one of the main reasons many veterans chose to serve our Country."  Just so.  And, now we come to the gist of the matter, don't we.  As he clarifies further:

"Our war memorials honor the millions of men and women who have laid their lives on the line to protect our country, our rights and our liberties…

"…including the God-given rights of free speech and religious liberty."  

Got it.  Can't let the concept of 'unalienable rights' - with which we are endowed by our Creator, according to the nation's founding documents - to remain through the revolution going on; turning the nation into an atheistic, permanent socialist welfare state, wherein and whereby our rights come from the state.  

And wherein and whereby what the state can give to you, it can take away from you.   

Former congressman West, then, highlights only part of the picture, when he accuses these atheistic groups - and the ACLU; with its purported purpose of keeping church and state separate, according to the Constitution3 - merely of 'political correctness':

"According to groups like Freedom From Religion Foundation, the families of these brave soldiers are asking too much by displaying a cross simply because these radical atheists are 'offended' by a cross."  He gets closer to the ultimate mark, thusly:

"Most Americans are not 'offended' by religious symbols used to honor our fallen heroes…

"Atheists want to erase all traces of our Judeo-Christian heritage -- at all costs -- because they are 'offended.'

"My friend, what about us?

"I don't know about you, but we are 'offended' by their constant attacks on our faith!

"We are 'offended' by their 'art' that consists of pictures of crosses submerged in urine…

"We are 'offended' by Hollywood's portrayal of Christians as backward sociopaths…

"And we are 'offended' that Christians seem to be the only group of people who are allowed to be attacked in the 'Politically Correct' culture we find ourselves living in today.

"Unfortunately, we're losing the war to preserve our Country's Judeo-Christian Heritage every day…4

"…and nothing will erase it faster than removing the symbols enshrined in the monuments commemorating those Americans who offered the ultimate sacrifice.

"Now the radical atheists have turned their attention to some of our most precious American sons - - our vets…

"…and want to decide how we will be allowed to honor our fallen heroes.

"This cowardly attempt to put political correctness over the honor of our fallen heroes must be stopped now."

Agreed.  But also - and mainly - because belief that our basic human rights precede their grant from the state, rather than come FROM the state, must, according to the belief of these statist revolutionaries, be wiped from the face of the earth.  So that we will be good, docile members of the collective.   Doing what the state tells us to do.

Or else.5 

So.

The cultural thing is one thing.  And many people are legitimately 'offended' by the (often just unconscious) assumptions of the 'ruling' religion.  But a) merely 'offending' somebody is not against the law.  Or at least, shouldn't be.  Not, at least, in even a relatively free country.  And b) what is going on is far more pervasive, far more fundamentally people-controlling and -denying, than that.  To say: I do not fight for the right of The People to bury their dead as they wish so much, or to believe as they wish so much, as I fight for the principle of our being sovereigns in our own right.  Not subjects of an omnipotent - and omnipresent (or at least, relentlessly getting there) - state.

So, get thee behind me, Satan.  In whatever form that spirit takes.  The spirit of Force.  Rather than of Love.  

The all-encompassing Love of the Creator for Its creation; and the crowning glory thereof:

the particularly sentient fractals of Itself.  Souls, temporarily housed - on this planet; and presumably elsewhere as well - in vehicles of skin and bones; flesh and blood: meat suits.  Making their way inexorably

Home.

With all the insights gained, and all that they have learned, along The Way.

El Camino Real, indeed.

   

---

footnotes:

1 It has gotten to the point that I finally had to give up making such contributions, out of my meager Social Security retirement 'income', and have begun sending back to the plethora of solicitations that jam pack my letter box either a 'Return to Sender' note on their envelope or, barring their indicating such, a form letter in their return envelope, stating:

'Dear (blank)

'Sorry to have to inform you that there are just too many 'worthy causes' out there that have come my way and I can't keep up with them all, so I've decided simply to drop them all (how does one choose???), and instead, concentrate on helping to bring about systemic change.  (There is a Better Way.)

'In the meantime, good luck with your worthy cause.

'Sincerely  (etc.)

'P.S. And accordingly, please take me off your mailing list.  Thank you.'

In reality, I have a few favorite 'worthy causes' that I just have not been able to cut totally off.  But that's life.  You have good intentions; and then, circumstances prevail.  There are rules.  And then there is attunement… 

     In some things.  Daily interactions with others, yes.  The very rule of law of the country, no.  Either we live by the Constitution - the spirit and letter thereof.  Or there is no stopping the rot; and anarchy becomes the ruling 'law' of the land.  The law of 'I am the law'.  The pronouncement of the king of the beasts.

     I am thinking of such fundamentals to the Constitution and its rule of law for the nation as the requirements for a candidate for the highest office in the land to have to meet.  But I'll keep this blog to its particular subject.  

     Just doing a bit of clarifying.  Which is, after all, the subject of this blog. 

      

2 Pardon my French.  It is a far, far cleaner version than I might have employed; for the sake of the sensibilities of those readers who are not accustomed to the telling of things like they really are.  

3 which is a bit of a misnomer.  But to continue, in this particular blog.


4 Speaking of: When Obama/Soetoro said, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation," he was demonstrating the quality of audacity - shading into outright arrogance; and especially with the quality of the royal 'we' shading into its pronouncement as well - that he once wrote about.  If he in point of actual fact really did.  I'll have to check and see if Jack Cashill subjected Obama/Soetoro's second book to the same impeccable forensic scrutiny that he did 'his' first one, uncovering Bill Ayers's fingerprints all over it in the process.


5 As a well-known liberal - and 'liberated' - female politician put it: "We have to get over this outdated notion that the children belong to their parents."   

     Why, of course they don't.  They belong to, to say are the responsibility of, the state; and 'the family' is a quaint relic of bygone days.  In certain people's minds, of a particular political persuasion, at least.  Yet, watch that state charge the parent(s) for child neglect if the child, emancipated, for all intents and purposes, from its parent(s) - as in obtaining contraception even without its parental knowledge or assent, or goes out on a Knockout expedition, or a flash-mob stealing of goods - goes feral.
     Talk about trying to have it both ways.