The one with the Amish

I saw a sign on the news being held by someone demonstrating against the Islamic Center in New York: "Ground Zero Mosque: Religion Preying on Freedom."  Of course, adherents of Islam would disagree, but that's to be expected.  Religion does something to the mind that alters its perceptions.  The English word 'religion' evolved more than likely from a Latin word that indicated obligation, dependence, and binding.  Islamic cultists themselves describe their faith as one of submission, a suitable synonym for dependence and binding.  But the concept is not foreign to the christian cult:  "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God." (Letter of James).  I will not elaborate on the humbleness of today's modern mega-preachers (or even the humbleness of small-time pastors in Gainesville, Florida) or the humbleness of the politicians being spewed up from among the christ cultists around the country, only to say that a wry grin often crosses my face, and sometimes a slow shake of the head.

"Religion preying on Freedom."  Someone asked me once why I don't support independence for Tibet, and my response was, I oppose any attempt of a religion to establish a state.  Religion is dangerous enough without giving it such immense power over the lives of millions of people and reserving the halls of law and justice for only those who adopt an orthodox religious point of view, whatever that religion is.  Yes, religion preys on freedom.  The religious concede that a believer sacrifices his or her freedom, but the sacrifice is to a beneficent being of ultimate wisdom and power.  How could you turn that down?  It's the perfect freedom, they say.  Yet, my observation is that God does not personally direct the affairs of the world.  Just a cursory view will show that if anyone is in charge, he or she is a complete incompetent.  The usual counter by believers is that the world is in chaos because we haven't all submitted to God's grace and peace.  But the chaos I see is among devout religious people, not unbelievers!  How can you explain that?  It seems, just looking at the observable world around me, that submission to God increases agitation.  It provokes hateful words.  It incites angry outbursts.

About the only religious people I can find that are not filled with simmering rage and malcontent are the Amish.  If all religious people were like the Amish, you would probably never hear a peep from us atheists!  The Amish live their own lives not bothering others, not infused with the need to change the world and impose the Old Testament on everyone.  They choose to live according to their faith, and if others don't choose that route, so be it.  It doesn't affect their faith in the least to have non-believers for neighbors, senators, governors, judges, sheriffs, and so forth.  Their faith does not depend on making sure it is dominant in the world or even in the nation.  Their faith is strong even without the force of congress behind it, probably because they believe that their God is actually all powerful and in control, quite unlike the new God of the modern Islamic or Christ cults Who just can't get enough people to pray in public without having to pass laws forcing it on them.  Just looking around, I get the impression that the overtly religious, those politicians and mega-pastors who want to make their religion the law of the land, they probably harbor fears which impel them to enslave others so as to make themselves feel better, creating the camaraderie of the damned, so to speak.  If these rising religious politicians and mega-pastors had a faith that matched in strength that of the Amish, they would run for office and preach positively instead of the negative attempts to bring unbelievers under the yoke of christ no matter what.  I don't care what your religion is, if you have one at all; I do care whether you are competent to lead.  Your single issue stances, be it immigration, gay rights, medical abortion, or tax breaks for billionaires do not make you qualified to lead.  I'd rather have a person I don't agree with on my pet issue, if that person is competent, than to have a sycophant in congress or the state capitol who has to make all his or her decisions based on which way the winds of religion are blowing that day.  Your faith is irrelevant to my life just so long as you make sure it is irrelevant.  The moment you start insisting that your cult's little view of the world should be enshrined in law that affects me, then we have a problem.

Yeah, religion preys on freedom, and that's why any candidate in these midterms who touts his or her faith will not get my vote.  I love my freedom, and I'm not about to hand it over to a bunch of spirit-filled bootlickers.