Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Meyers is right about the right-wing evangelical movement (which is completely different from evangelical Christians who act as fishers of men, not political parties). They have so mixed their religious identity with charlatans like Tom DeLay that they have reached cult status. I.e., they cannot separate their desire to faithfully serve God and Jesus from crooks and false prophets who deliberately exploit them.

Sweeping generalizations are the surest sign of faulty logic, so I will delve into the specifics of my broad opine: How many times have you heard the phrase: "The liberal Supreme Court (or federal government) has banned prayer in public schools."

That statement is simply a lie. No earthly power has the power to ban prayer. What government has ever stopped true Christians, Muslims, etc., from praying? Even under torture from a government that wants you to deny Christ, you can still pray. You can pray in the locker room. You can pray before tests. Right-wing Christians accept the "banned" statement as dogma. What in the Bible tells you that accepting lies is the path to salvation?

So what has the Supreme Court banned? They've interpreted the Constitution to mean that government officials, paid by a pluralisic society of taxpayers and "the people," who are fundamentally "the government," cannot force your kids to pray Catholic prayers. Or Southern Baptist prayers. Or face the east toward Mecca. You cannot use your majority religious status to further your private convictions with taxpayer money.

And, in reality, we are lucky to live in the day when the Supreme Court has reached a very reasonable compromise on the First Amendment's ban against establishing a religion and the free exercise thereof. Ever hear of the "Meet-you-at-the-flagpole" prayer days on public property? Those are completely constitutional because it is a private group, not supported by taxpayers, meeting to exercise their religious freedom on public property. They are free to do as they please, and the "state" is not forcing other people to join them in prayer to Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, UFOs, etc.

It is a sad day when Christians look to the government, even one wonderfully designed to allow a neutral freedom, to spread the Word of God. If society is crumbling under the weight of immorality, it's not the fault of government, the Internet or TV. Disciples of Christ, examine the mote in thine eye.
 

Another Anonymous here.

What part of this do people not understand?

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

6:2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

XXX

The longer I live, the more I love the Lord -- and the more I can't stand his most vocal followers! What a ahame.
 

This is from yet another Anonymous.

This is something that popped into my head (therefore there is a connection) while reading the above posts (but which will seem apropos to nothing to the casual reader).

Nonetheless, I post it.

In the online universe, I had occasion in the past year to exchange ideas by email anonymously with someone who "might have been" a romantic interest (we were introduced on a matching site closely associated with a person who is frequently quoted in Christian dating circles). I say might have been now, because it was not to be.

Why? Because he was dogmatically, unendingly quoting Scripture (in and of itself not so bad a thing) that in my mind was being bent, truncated or otherwise misused for the purposes of his argument ... which quickly took on water in the face of my own strict interpretation of Scripture.

Case in point: Scripture references quoting the Christ on divorce and remarriage among Christians. Divorce is not good, but is acceptable under a couple of scenarios. But in no scenario is it OK for a Christian who divorces to remarry, without both parties in that marriage committing adultery.

End of argument, in my mind.

But this man had to call into question the translation of the Bible that I was using (that's OK, I understand that some "modern" translations are mere English updates of King James, and the translators are not necessarily scholars who return to primary sources), my ability to intuit Scripture absent training in Greek, and whether it was appropriate to cross-reference similar Scripture in different books of the Bible (esp. in Gospels).

Essentially, I gathered, he wanted to be RIGHT. He, a man who felt he'd been tricked into marriage in the first place because he'd impregnated the woman out of wedlock and later a divorcee, wanted to feel free and clear to marry again, though the ex-wife was not dead. In fact, I believe, the ex-wife was merely insane, in his estimation, and mean and surly, and there were some obscure (to me, at least) "conventions" or "Conventions" that had rendered opinions on divorce.....

and not only THAT, in the divorce decree, which had to go through a court, there was some misinterpretation (in this man's opinion) that led to certain restrictions being put on his visitation rights with their mutual daughter, which made him look bad in the eyes of the law, therefore, this man was on a campaign (I see now, not of his own making) to rid the system of CORRUPT JUDGES!!!

I believe that God is in control -- even when we the people are wrong or out of control -- so it is wrong of me to say things like "I fear for our country" or "I fear for the future."

But I do fear these days when some of the fiercest Christians are those who desperately want the laws of the United States to legitimize their own sinful natures. Who want to be told that, because the society changes, and the laws need to change with them, somehow the "laws" they purport to follow through their beliefs can be changed too.

Christ asked his followers to follow him. He also said He was (is) the Way, the Truth and the Life. That's pretty simple, and extraordinarily hard. And I don't think that in general, the Way depends on the court system to interpret the path it lays down.