When you go against Trump, you go against God

One thing I find particularly oppressive about religion is the way it can intrude on one's whole life. When we say a religion is a "world view," it can mean that it dictates nearly every opinion and choice. Obviously, different religions do this to different extents. Some religions take it all: how you live your day-to-day life, what political and social issues you find important and the stance you take, your opinions on the physical world, and your "higher Purpose" in life. Some are more liberal, allowing the believer to make decisions about the real world.

This is why atheism is not  a worldview. It is simply an answer to one question: does any god exist? Atheists say no. How you live your life, what you believe about social issues and policies, etc.: that's all up to the individual to examine.

In the US, there is a particularly poison strain of religion, I find, and that is the type of politicized religion. A lot of the leaders of this strain have radio or television programs, and they look to reclaim dominance over the lives of everyone, believers and non, alike. They are not interested in individuals coming to their own conclusions because they think their god is the source of the rulebook. Furthermore, he gives us plenty of signs of his displeasure.

These days under Trump, a lot of these poison dealers are jubilant because of the president's pandering to their agenda. Jim Bakker, of the rapture food bucket fame, is especially thrilled about the presence of prayer in the White House. He hosted one of the president's "spiritual advisers" who made the declaration that opposition to Trump is opposition to GOD HIMSELF.

Now, rhetorically, one might quote the Bible, say Romans13:1 where it states that one true God has established authorities himself. Technically, then, whoever is in power was thanks to the Christian god. This includes Obama, but no, because Obama was supposedly some kind of Muslim, communist sign of the end times or other.

I only point out this piece of scripture to note that when you start saying that god has ordained one person or another, you are imposing your ideas on politics. You are not actually heeding your book that you claim as some kind of authority.

Bakker seemed especially excited that the "murder" of babies is going to end. Of course he means abortion, which we could argue about whether is really murder or not. But, here is another issue that is not mentioned in the Bible at all. Even the commandment not to murder is countermanded by all the killing Yahweh allows in the Old Testament. I mean, there are more lines dedicated to slavery than to the worry about unborn children.

Of course, as an atheist, I don't care about an old book. I think we need to examine the real world and the consequences of our actions to decide right and wrong. The problem is, I have a very small platform, and these people have a microphone, an audience, and now, the president's ear.

Some people might say that I am the one trying to impose my beliefs on others. But there are huge differences. If I say that abortion is the choice of an individual to control her body, you can choose not to have an abortion. You are not forced. If I say we should treat all people as humans worthy of dignity, regardless of skin color, origin, ability, gender or sexual orientation, you can still hold whatever nonsense belief you have, you just can't discriminate. If I am pro-marriage equality, I am not forcing you to be gay or get married to someone of the same gender. You just can't make that determination for someone's life.

You might ask, where does all this end? Well, we need to have discussions about our impacts on the world. Why is murder wrong? A murderer is radically interfering in other people's lives. That person is ending one person's life and creating grief and more in other people's lives. It's the famous line of your freedom ends at the end of your fist.

We might not always agree. We might not always think that we are impacting others. I have heard, what harm is it to you that I [fill in the blank]? There may actually be an answer, so we need to listen. What happens if you run a church out of your house? You are creating parking hassles and causing a disturbance because of noise. You are changing the nature of a residential neighborhood. Why shouldn't we have Christian symbols and prayers at the town hall exclusively? Do you want to say that your government is only for those that follow your specific religion?

Bakker also seems to be under the delusion that government has tried to "destroy the church people for decades." First off, this is a surprise to me because I constantly hear politicians talk about praying and their god. I see symbols of religion all over the place. I notice that the Freedom from Religion Foundation has asked government to remove religious monuments and prayers. So I say bullshit to this claim, but let's assume government was silent. Silence is not the denial of your beliefs. It is simply the refusal of an entity to take a side.

Government should not be taking sides on religion. That should be up to the individual's conscience. But of course, Bakker and his ilk are looking for to regain power and maintain relevance in a crowded media space.

(Via: RightWingWatch)