Religion and Politics Do Not Mix

These are not my words; they are my thoughts. I could not have said them better myself.

Religion and Politics Do Not Mix
By Yvonne Perry

You may have been taught in school that America was founded upon Christianity, but proof of such is not reflected in the writings of our founding fathers. In fact, the first six American presidents were actually opposed to the doctrine and dogma of Christianity.

Would you refer to prejudice and premeditated murder as Christian traits? One of our forefathers was so prejudiced against the American Natives that he once described them as "having nothing human except the shape" and as "a beast of prey." Known as the "Father of our Country", President George Washington was known as "The Town Destroyer," and "The Killer of Women and Children" among the Onadaga Indian People whom he and his militia killed in cold blood. Did good ol' George (who couldn't tell a lie) believe this country was founded upon Christian fundamentals? Washington is quoted as saying, "The United States is in no sense founded upon Christian Doctrine."

John Adams, the second President of the United States, had little use for religion when he said, "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence "found not one redeeming feature in orthodox Christianity" and added:

Christianity------the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ------Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus. The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and the freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors.

Jefferson also called for limitation on the power of the Government, and was an advocate for the separation of Church and State.

James Madison, fourth president of the United States, thought no better of religion when he said: During almost fifteen centuries the legal establishment known as Christianity has been on trial, and what have been the fruits, more or less, in all places? These are the fruits: pride, indolence, ignorance, and arrogance in the clergy. Ignorance, arrogance, and servility in the laity, and in both clergy and laity, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States, was no doubt a religious man who is remembered as a Christian President; however, some say Lincoln was a skeptic of Christianity. He is quoted as saying, "The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." His views did not change during his political career. He was later noted to say, "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

After Lincoln's assassination an American author and the editor of Scribner's Monthly named Dr. Josiah G. Holland wrote about Lincoln's religious views:

"------He believed in God, and ------believed himself to be under his control and guidance. ------This unwavering faith in a Divine Providence began at his mother's knee, and ran like a thread of gold through all the experiences of his life. His constant sense of human duty was one of the forms by which his faith manifested itself. ------He recognized an immediate relation between God and himself, in all the actions and passions of his life. He was not professedly a Christian-that is, he subscribed to no creed-joined no organization of Christian disciples. He spoke little------of his religious belief and experiences; but that he had a deep religious life, sometimes imbued with superstition------."

Perhaps Lincoln recognized the difference in spirituality which is our connection and relationship to our Creator, and religion which is the very thing that attempts to separate us from one another and our Creator.

Aside from presidents, other founding fathers of notoriety agree that Christianity has little merit when it comes to governing a nation of people. When Benjamin Franklin was asked about his religion, he said:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with the most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts to his divinity. ------ I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.

Deism is a seventeenth- and eighteenth-century religious philosophy and movement prominent in England and the United States. Deists normally reject supernatural events and divine revelation common to organized religion. Disregarding holy books and religions that affirm the existence of such things, deists support religious beliefs must be founded on human reason observation of the natural world which reveal the existence of a supreme being. Deist Thomas Paine had a strong opinion about religion:

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. ------Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is part of the Bill of Rights which prevents legislature that establishes a national religion by Congress or that prefers or supports one religion over another. The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This part of the First Amendment is sometimes referred to as "the separation of church and state" which means that the state or national government should be kept separate from religious institutions.

I doubt the Ten Commandments were posted in courthouses during the early days of U.S. history. Our founding fathers proposed the First Amendment and rejected Christianity as a ruling factor in government and political issues. After being ruled by a government which tried to synchronize the beliefs of the entire population, they were fed up with being told what to do and what to believe. They wanted religious freedom. Today, we as citizens still want religious freedom, but there can be no religious freedom when one religion controls the masses through government. Yet, this is exactly what has occurred in our nation. Religious groups attempt to control the government by imposing laws that decide what a marriage is, what can be grown in our backyard and what medical research can be federally funded.

Every time a law is passed that gives jurisdiction over what happens in a person's home, marriage, healthcare or religion, we lose another personal right that was assured in the laws used to found our country. It's time to stand up and vote against bills and amendments that take away the one thing our founding fathers did have in common-freedom from religion.

Works Cited:

The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420

http://www.theramp.net/kohr4/HEROES.html

http://afgen.com/church2a.html

http://www.biosfear.com/archives/000165.html

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/state-press-19860429.html

http://thewaronfaith.com/ff_franklin.htm

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs24b.htm

Yvonne Perry is a freelance writer and the owner of Writers in the Sky Creative Writing Services (WITS). She and her team of ghostwriters are ready to assist you with writing and editing for books, eBooks, Web text, business documents, resumes, bios, articles, and media releases.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Yvonne_Perry
http://EzineArticles.com/?Religion-and-Politics-Do-Not-Mix&id=368311

My Twitter Addiction - the #whoandwhyifollow post

I am a Twitter junkie.

There, I've said it...and I'm not ashamed. Twitter is just about the coolest tool on the web right now (among the ones I've tried so far; the web's a big place and I haven't gotten around to all of it...yet).

What makes Twitter so twittalating? Short (140 characters or less), frequent posts about whatever you're moved to share, and some Twitterific people! Some are purely social; some are marketing products or services; the best share freely of themselves, their knowledge, and their view of the world.

Now @David_N_Wilson and @SarahJL have started an avalanche of shout-outs to the Tweeters, Tweeple, TweetiePies...well, you get the idea...the people we enjoy most on Twitter. In the spirit of share the wealth, here are my favorite people in the Twitterverse. To keep from making a 20,000 word blog post, I've restricted myself to just a few. I enjoy everyone I follow on Twitter for one reason or another; these are the ones with whom I've made an extra connection, professionally, socially, spiritually, or all of the above.

Without further ado, here's my #whoandwhyifollow list:

@SarahJL - "I'm a Twin Cities Radio DJ, Voiceover coach & Belly dance teacher and performer. I love my husband @QuantumGood, our cats & spiritual freedom!" Who wouldn't want to follow Sarah? She's fun, smart, talented, and has a wide range of interests that she shares freely. Her blog rocks, too!

@firehorse_ij - "Cubicle dweller, voracious reader, slightly neurotic" Another smart, funny person; we share a professional interest in training development and an enjoyment of commercials that say something so unexpected and out of place that you spew coffee out your nose. She blogs, too.

@writersinthesky - "Published author, writer, editor, podcaster, owner of WITS Creative Writing Services. Gardening, marketing, stem cell research & spiritual discussions." Yvonne uses Twitter to market her writing services business, to promote causes she's passionate about, and to share her knowledge with others. Her website is cool; her blog about writing is informative and a good read.

@markdavidgerson - "Speaker, workshop leader, creativity coach, spiritual mentor and award-winning author of The MoonQuest & The Voice of the Muse: Answering the Call to Write" Mark is inspiring! I've never met him, but even his 140-character Tweets give off a gentle, caring vibe. Check out his website, too.

@Judith12 - "Neither artist nor poet. Quasi-retired. Oft reclusive. Seasoned. Wiccan. Innkeeper. Equity: stage manager." I disagree with Judith's profile; she IS both artist and poet. She paints little 140-character word pictures of her beautiful home every day and I just love them! Judith is one of the first people I found (or who found me) on Twitter and I'm glad.

@DatingGod - "health freak, world phreak, parttime recluse, shamanic healer, writer, earth mama, bee-hybrid, couch tuber, will tweet for organic red wine . . . " Cool writer chick with a great blog, a wicked sense of humor, and a beautiful "Yes!" approach to life. I haven't forgotten that I owe her a response to something she asked of me a long time ago and hope she hasn't given up on me! Check out her very personal, very interesting blog.

@deaconblues1982, @NPMMDad, @rickbaldwin - Three very interesting gentlemen. Deacon's a personal friend, NPMMDad and Rick Baldwin are local guys. They're all smart and funny. Deacon and NPMMDad share day to day thoughts and life; Rick Baldwin posts short, funny quips all the time...nothing earth shaking or of any real importance, but witty and fun.

There you have it; my Twitter A list. Everyone I follow on Twitter brings something good to the party, and I enjoy the whole shebang. If you're not on Twitter, I recommend it. Just be aware - it's habit forming.

Happy Tweeting!

Everybody’s Got a Right…

…and we keep them or lose them together.

All the buzz around gay marriage has been a catalyst for debate and has sparked Americans everywhere to think about the issue and figure out just where they stand. That’s good; we need to be shaken up now and then. Unfortunately, most people are so focused on the specifics in this debate that they’re missing the real issue.

It’s not about gay and lesbian marriage. It’s about personal and spiritual freedom and the separation of church and state.

I’ve written about this issue before, but today I saw a quote that very eloquently captured the real heart of the matter, the thing we should be talking and writing and shouting on the street corners about.

I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or non-believer, or as anything else you choose. We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us. -Mario Cuomo, 52nd Governor of New York (b. 1932)

That’s it. That’s what should have us all standing up and saying, “Enough!” The stakes in this game aren’t whether same sex couples can say, “I do!” At stake here is whether or not we will legally allow the religious beliefs of one group to determine the rights of every citizen. And the very people who are most adamantly opposed to the gay marriage issue are among the most religious people in this country. They’re the ones fighting the hardest to win when they have the most to lose.

When we protect the rights of anyone, we protect the rights of everyone. And if we allow the rights of any individual or group to be taken away, we chip away at our own.

“…the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is they might some day force theirs on us.”

Those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are attempting to force that opposition into law. The same thing is happening with abortion laws, stem cell research, and how we teach science, literature, and sexuality in our schools.

People are taking a frighteningly shortsighted view. They believe they’re winning when they get their way. Look further down the road; what damage can be done by the precedent we’re setting? Winners and losers can change places in a societal heartbeat. You may be thrilled to defeat the gay marriage issue now, but what issue will come up next and whose beliefs will win that one? What if your cherished morality becomes unpopular? Are you willing to put your spiritual path up for vote?

I’m not. And I’m going to keep talking about it as long as I have a voice. I hope you’ll add your voice to mine and to all the voices already speaking up about the dangerous erosion of personal and religious freedom. It’s a bigger, scarier issue by far than having two grooms on a cake topper.

And another thing...

Ok, so I'm still riled up about the whole breast thing. And I think it's a fully justified, truly righteous indignation I'm working up.

You see, the part that has me the most upset is that it's women - W-O-M-E-N - who tend to make the most fuss about things like seeing breasts exposed. Women! It's our breasts we're bitching about!

You might think I'm making an unreasonably big fuss over this issue. In fact, it's an unreasonably big issue. Here's why (bear with me; it's a long explanation):

Men are biologically driven to seek sex. As soon as a young man hits puberty, it's pretty much up-periscope and he's dragged around by the end of his heat-seeking missile for a few years (more than a few). Now, guys, don't get mad. I'm not implying that you don't excercise control and take the reins back...but I've never talked to a man yet who didn't admit that he nicknamed his privates because he wasn't comfortable having a total stranger in charge of his life.

Women, on the other hand, are wired a bit differently. We love sex, but our biological drive is seated in another cradle. We have greater control over our physical desires but we're positively addicted to acceptance, love, and being the object of exclusive desire.

Add to this little mix the fact that, as my former mother-in-law (now resting, presumably in peace) used to say - "Yeah, little boy, you've got one of those, but I've got one of these, and with this I can get all of those I want!" Is it not true? My husband puts it quite succinctly. He asks simply, "If you're a woman, answer this question with total honesty: Could you, if you chose to do so, get laid tonight? Not necessarily with the person or under the circumstances you might desire, but could you have sexual intercourse with a willing partner tonight?" The answer is, in almost every single case, yes. And that translates to one thing: power.

Sexuality is powerful. Women's sexuality is extremely powerful. The biological imperative placed on men to spread the seed far and wide makes them vulnerable to this power. So how, without killing off your source for the very thing that renders you so vulnerable in the first place, do you right the power imbalance? You enlist the aid of an equal or more powerful ali.

Enter the church. What better way to reduce the power of women's sexuality than to declare it disgusting, filthy, defiling, sinful in its very nature and existence. "The hands that have touched a woman are not fit to handle the body of Christ." Filthy daughters of filthy Eve. Lusty succubi used by the devil to ensnare innocent men in a pit of carnal degradation. So filthy are women that some priests are required to be celebate in order to handle the Host. And it's obviously not Christianity alone that feels the need to protect against the evils of feminine sexuality. Look at Islam. And don't even get me started on cultures that perform ritual mutilation on women, excising the clitoris and part of the labia as a "right of passage."

And the worst part of all this? Women themselves have bought into it. We may not run around calling ourselves evil, filthy, or inherently unclean, but let one of us show a breast in public and Katie, bar the door, it's on! Let one of our sisters show a little too much leg or a bit more clevage than we think appropriate and we're slinging "slut" and "tramp" like poison darts. A flirtatious woman gets a little male attention while other women are quietly plotting her demise. Even the most non-sexual use of our bodies - pregnancy, childbirth, nursing - is subject to the madness. Case in point: The August 2006 issue of Baby Talk magazine featured a nursing baby on the cover. There was such an uproar about the cover that the magazine polled readers and at least 25% responded that they are upset or offended by the photo. Who reads the magazine? Women! Women with babies! Women with BREASTS! Read the article.

It's all about power, folks. And the sad part is that it really doesn't have to be this way. But you can bet that it will stay as long as the prisoners keep polishing the bars and making sure the doors shut tight. If women don't reclaim and own their own sexual power and learn to use it ethically and for the good of all, we'll always be evil daughters of evil Eve. If we're going to think anything is disgusting, it should be that. I know I'm ashamed.

Beasts! Beasts! Beware the beasts!

I read recently where some people were highly offended by other people exposing their beasts in public. Well, I should say so! I don’t want to see anyone’s beasts! And what about the children? What were these people thinking? Beasts are to be kept private, covered, hidden away. They could hurt someone!

Oh…wait…by golly, I read that wrong. It was breasts, not beasts. Huh…funny what a difference that "r" makes.

Only… well… it seems that it doesn’t make any difference at all. People are just as offended by breasts as they are by beasts. Offended? By breasts? Life-giving, sweater-filling, put-your-head-on-my-pillows breasts actually offend people? Apparently so. Some folks seem to equate beasts – snarly, scary things with fangs and bad attitudes – with breasts – soft, jiggly things with little pink nipples and no attitudes at all other than perky, and even that goes away pretty darned quickly.

Further confusing matters, some breasts seem to be more offensive than others. A Hollywood breast, for example, draped in something sheer or shiny that barely covers only the cute little nipple, is not likely to cause any but the nicest kind of stir. People will snap photos of it for magazines, newspapers, and websites, and afford it honors like "Best Dressed." But a Chattanooga breast, clothed in a cotton camp shirt from J. C. Penney, a nursing bra, and the lips of a cherub-cheeked infant – that breast can cause a ruckus. Expressions of disgust and even outrage rise up all around whenever one of those puppies raises its nose (even though the nose is, technically, covered by the baby).

I guess I just don’t get it. I was ok when I thought it was beasts causing all the commotion. But breasts? Breasts that are feeding babies? Nourishing, pure-and-perfect mother’s milk dispensing, comfort-giving, smells like mama…what in the name of all that is human can possibly be offensive about that? Have we become so sexually driven that we can’t see past our own neurotic obsession with the prelude, losing sight of the main attraction? All that sexual activity we associate with breasts leads right up to babies, and babies have to be fed. That makes breasts pretty much full-circle, self-contained, the right tool for the right job perfect, if you ask me… and nothing to be ashamed of.

Hmmph. I think some of these folks’ beasts are showing…and I AM offended.