The Republicans' Unforgivable Sin

This doesn't apply to all of them, but it does apply to FAR too many of them.

The use of religion as a divisive tool, and the use of christianity to manipulate people into doing unchristian things, is as close to unforgivable as you can get, especially in the blatant, unrepentant way that they do it.

Jesus was called the "Prince of Peace" for a reason, and it certainly wasn't because of his support of the Iraq war. Jesus's entire life was dedicated to preaching about taking care of the poor, be truly faithful to God, not for personal gain, but out of love for God, and to be introspective before you criticize others.

Yet the republicans have convinced 63% of all christians who go to church more than once a week that the determining factor in whether or not you're a christian is gay marriage and abortion. And they have used this to get people who are supposed to live by the ethos "love thy neighbor as thyself" to vote for people campaigning on a "God Hates Fags" platform, and to seemingly honestly hate their fellow citizens.

Alright, I may have overstated the "unforgivable" part of the title, since thinking anything is unforgivable is very unchristian of me. It's just an awful thing they're doing, and I am shocked that they can sleep at night and look at themselves in the mirror every morning.

Christianity is basically founded on a few basic principles, love God with all of your heart, love thy neighbor as thyself, don't be hypocritical, and care for those who need caring for. The rest of christianity all stems from those basic principles, such as a fairly universal stance against violence (thus using the Lord's name to justify war is plain and simple heresy).

Think of the so called christian Tom Delay, for example. When he was indicted for money laundering, what was his first action? Did he follow the bible when it says "Before you remove the speck from your neighbor's eye, remove the log from your own" or "He who is without sin cast the first stone" and admit that even if what he did wasn't illegal it was still a little shifty, and maybe he shouldn't of done it? No, the first thing he did was he came out and started repeatedly personally attacking Ronnie Earle, the prosecuter.

I'm sorry if this post isn't particularly eloquent or smooth, it's just shit like this that infuriates me, and thus it's hard to articulate everything going through my head on this topic.

Anarchy

Anarchy is tricky, because it carries a lot of preconcieved notions with it. Most people when they think of anarchy, think of the Sex Pistols acting like pricks or the LA riots or something along those lines.
For the purpose of this conversation, THAT is not what I'm talking about when I'm talking about anarchy. I don't consider that anarchy, but instead I consider that chaos. Anarchy is the absense of law and government, chaos is the absense of order. Anyone who argues that we need chaos is clearly an idiot, but believing in anarchy is a completely justifiable position, at least I hope it is, considering it's one of mine!

I don't think I'll live to see anarchy, at least not in the form I'm speaking of. I don't think it's possible.

For anarchy to be successful, the order provided by the government would have to be replaced by a substitute form of order, which is a complex idea, because how do you force order on someone over whom you have no formal authority? Hypothetically I believe that we would still have the united states as a voluntary body providing infrastructure, but there'd be a hell of a lot more than 50 states.

200 million people is far too many people to govern well or efficiently, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. If you have a rule, and you fill a room with say, 30 people who all broke the rule, chances are at least one of them has a justifiable reason for breaking the rule, and that goes for any rule. So what do you do? Leave it up to the judgement of trusted individules? Would these people have enough time to properly review each situation? And if so, could you really find that many people whose judgement you trust?
Or the other option is beurocracy, but is it really fair to punish the people with justifiable excuses solely because we're too lazy, as a society, to figure out a system in which those without a good reason are punished but the morally innocent aren't?

But if you split it all up into say 200 people in a group, and have a million of these groups, then the logistical problems with dealing with these issues would all be cured. And the other thing, people could find groups in which they fit in and feel comfortable, like, I'd probably end up in one that tolerated and accepted drug use (pot), but other than that was pretty traditional. There would be no governing rules that applied to all of these groups other than live and let live, and if you want to leave, go right ahead.

A big thing we'd rely on is the market. The market is an incredible force for justice if utilized correctly. Corporations are motvated by one thing, and that is money. Although to some this may seem callous and a reason why these things should be ignored, but that's the one way to ensure they will NEVER do what you want them to. When something is motivated by one, and only one thing, through use of this one motivator you could manipulate the thing into doing whatever you want. So if we made it more profitable to practice good fair business, it would be so, cause no corporation is being a dick solely for the purpose of being a dick.


But back to the idea that I don't think it's possible within my lifetime. Anyone who claims the government could be overthrown tomorrow and we'd be fine is a liar. People are far too dependent on the government, and thus not prepared at all for actual accountability. Over time, though, they could be taught and prepared.
The purpose of government is two fold, the first is to make the lives of its citizens as good as possible during its existance, and the other part is to prepare its citizens to live without it, and then dissolve itself.

Secularism

I've been thinking a lot about this over the last couple days. I know I'm anti-theocratic, because if one is forced into faith it's not faith at all, and thus completely pointless. Does that mean that I support complete secularism?
I don't think so.

I tend to identify with liberals most of the time, except when they act like facists (which is surprisingly often), and something I hear very often is that we should not allow our politicians to use their faith in their policy suggestions.
This would mean that I could never hold public office, since it would be impossible for me to seperate what values I hold because of my faith, and what values I would hold without my faith.
For example, I am against the death penalty. I know there is a lot of logic behind it, i.e. if done accurately it is not a deterent, it costs more than imprisoning the criminal for life, but could I say with 100% certainty that that evidence would be enough without my faith telling me that there is nothing someone can do that should not be forgiven if forgiveness is requested, and that revenge is unacceptable? No, not a chance in hell.

I've been reading "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get it" by Jim Wallis recently, and he made an interesting point that you liberals might benefit to consider: "The cure for bad theology is not secularism. The cure for bad theology is good theology."

It's those damn atheists that make this all a lot more complicated, because their religious beliefs (and yes, believing that there is no God despite there being no scientific evidence backing it up is a religious belief) are just as valid as mine, at least they should be in the eyes of the law and government. But does that mean we should act as if there is no God in the public square? That doesn't seem fair, because that would show an uneven amount of preference to their religion.

I think what we should do is remain unaffiliated as a society. We shouldn't get bent out of shape over the pointless petty stuff, like a nativity in front of a public building. Some claim it's a sign of greater discrimination, and I think it's just a bunch of people being petty. One's religion or lack thereof should not discredit them, or make them more credible. In the bible it says "Faith without works is nothing." so without the record, someone saying they're religious is completely pointless. So we should let people practice their faith, and let the petty shit slide, and look towards our politicians records to see how religious they are, not their quotes. It's alright to vote with your faith, but for God's sake, look at the record and make sure you're not being manipulated because of your faith.