Everyone has some set of beliefs that they carry that can have no explanation. The absolute scientist–the scientist who believes only what he can see, touch, feel, observe, and reason about logically–believes in that. Do you see how he is worshiping his own eyes, ears, hands, and mind?

I myself am a scientist, trained in the ways of science. But I don’t worship science. I don’t trust it to tell me what is good or evil. I don’t stake my happiness on whether the universe is flat or round or whether there are tachyons or even protons. Yet I have a belief that we can learn a lot about the universe (which I believe is God’s handiwork) through our God-given senses and our God-given sense of reason. Yet I know that being mortal, and being most unlike God, the most I can hope to ever understand is an infinitesimal part of it.

Secularism, the belief that we shouldn’t talk about beliefs in the public square (except of course the belief that we shouldn’t talk about beliefs) is also a religion. What drives people to believe that it is good that we don’t discuss religious beliefs? I certainly don’t believe so. It isn’t good to argue, of course. It isn’t good to fight over religion (unless you are threatened in your own free practice of your religion.) But it is good to talk and to share. I can’t imagine science progressing as far as it has without some kind of openness. I would hope that people share the same kind of open mind when it comes to their personal and private beliefs.

Then there are those who are sociopaths, who believe that they can do whatever, whenever they want to satisfy their lusts or greed. I think we both agree that people that act out on this belief in the form of fraud, murder, and rape deserve to be punished. How is this not a form of religious persecution? I certainly believe we are justified to punish those who act out their bad beliefs. I don’t believe we should throw people in prison for believing things that are wrong, however. The only way a bad belief can be remedied is through preaching and conversion and persuasion, not force. Bad behavior, on the other hand, can be corrected with the strong arm of government. At the very least, we can keep bad actors out of our society, keeping it safe to live in.

Yes, some religions are bad and some are good. Some elevate man, drive them to think higher thoughts, drive them to be kind and courteous and respectful, make them into better people than they would otherwise be. Others do the opposite. Jesus taught, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” That’s how we can judge a set of religious beliefs.

But what fruit? What is it we should seek in this life? The ancient Greek philosophers understood that there is only one goal in life: happiness. Not pleasure, not vain satisfactions, but lasting and true happiness. That’s no different than what every other religion taught. Salvation is, ultimately, eternal happiness. Buddhism, Hinduism, and all world religions I think ultimately focus on making men happy.

I don’t think there were any serious philosophers since Greek times, at least until our time, that thought any different. Only today do we preach that it’s okay to do something if it “feels” good in the moment, our happiness and other people’s happiness being ignored.

But we must admit, first and foremost:

One, we are all believers in some religion, a religion being a system of beliefs.

Two, that some religions are bad and some are good, and they are distinguished by their fruits.

Three, that our society, our nation, has a national religion. The basic tenets of that religion are, One, that there is a divine power in heaven who rules with absolute authority. Two, that this divine power gave men power to make governments. Three, that governments are created to protect the divinely granted individual rights of man, Four, that governments that do not protect those rights are worthy of being overthrown. Five, that perhaps our system is superior to all other systems since it ensures that governments can be changed bloodlessly, and it doesn’t allow power to collect in the hands of a few people and thus abused.

These are a set of beliefs that are shared by our society at large. Yes, our beliefs may change over time. We may adopt better ones or worse ones. It’s human nature. But we aren’t asked to prove our beliefs like a theorem. We only prove them by the fruits of the beliefs.

For instance, the belief in free trade among nations has proven fruitful. Nations that opened their borders to trade have, universally, experienced enhanced economic growth and a closer bond to their neighbors, while nations that have closed their borders to trade or heavily regulated it found the opposite.

But if we don’t adhere to these beliefs, the beliefs that compose the American religion, we run the risk of becoming subject to the whims of men, the tyranny of the majority, the same faceless mob that murdered (yes, murdered) Socrates. Or we allow power to collect in the hands of individuals, then we will see a similar fate. Somewhere in between democracy and autocracy is a happy medium.

That’s why I don’t like atheism. It preaches that there is no God but man. Well, if man is God, then why don’t we just put power in the hands of the people or in the hands of a select few? We’ve been there before, and it leads to a lot of death and a lot of killing. I’d rather we kept our power in the hands of a God who is perfect and just and merciful, who gave us rules and laws that are unchangeable and absolute, rules that have been proven many times to be correct and fruitful.

(Not to mention, of course, that much of the discussions about democracy, freedom and liberty are derived from the work of Greek philosophers, and the earliest forms of democracy had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Conversely, some pretty awful dictatorships and monarchies have had the backing of the Holy Church.)

Now, you can believe whatever you wish about the form of our society. I will agree that to have a successful society, you cannot incorporate those that would want to destroy it completely. I will also agree that we live in a society with religion in it, and that people have beliefs that are their own.

But when you state that you live in a “religious society” where only religions that accept God and human rights are tolerated, where does that leave the agnostic, atheist, humanist, whatever? (Or Buddhists, Hindus, or Shintoists, for that matter…) Your argument in this case is that they, at the very least, should not be part of this society. At worst, you argue here that they should be disenfranchised.

How is this “fair”? How does this preserve liberty?

It isn’t, and it doesn’t.

Our secular society is not a straightjacket, but more a stage or a playing field. Science, commerce, industry, education, law enforcement, medicine… much of what we see in our everyday lives is quite agnostic, and operates completely outside concepts that are exclusive to certain religions alone. Teaching children problem solving skills in math, for example, or treating drinking water cannot usually be seen as dependent on one’s religion. And there are some tenets that are shared commonly amongst most religions, faiths and codes of ethics, or are seen as being necessary for a modern civil society to function.

From that basic foundation, people should be allowed to practice the religion, or even not to practice, if they so choose. Once the stage is built, it can be used for dance performances, for musicals, for a comedy routine, whatever. You can play many different sports on a playing field. Comparably, civil society supports religion, and for many people, their own religion brings meaning to the space. But I can’t tell you how to use or to bring meaning to the space we live in, though, nor should I.

This persecution complex that you have? Misdirected whinging. There are plenty of idiots around Seattle willing to slander the religious, just like I’ve received a few comments in more religious and conservative quarters about my beliefs. But if you want me to shed a tear because Macy’s tells you “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”, or because kids that were raised outside of the Christian faith aren’t forced to say a Christian prayer in school, I’m afraid that you’ve come to the wrong place. Call me back when someone is being fed to a lion, or denied an apartment at the very least.

In my experience, conservatives often say, “You must accept what I think as truth, despite whatever you may think or whatever evidence is to the contrary. Questioning my interpretations has no place in this society, and I’ll only accept progress or change if I’m dragged kicking and screaming to it.” On the other hand, liberals would respond by saying, “Why not question what you think as truth? You’re saying things that are outmoded, dangerous, don’t apply to my situation, or don’t even truly reflect the way that the world works. Why shouldn’t we try to change this?” We need both, of course! A society completely embracing change would be too unpredictable and chaotic and a totally conservative society would stagnate and die.

Still, to me it is the ultimate hubris to assume that the rules of society are perfect, or could be perfect by following the current tenets of a single faith. I am always personally looking for truth, and I would never assume that every answer that I might need can be found so easily. Who knows what Jesus would drive? Which websites He would look at? What jobs he would prefer his followers to have? Whether he would approve of same-sex marriages? Narrow, historical interpretations of the Bible just don’t cut it in my mind.

Oh, and if you assume that freedom should be all about you imposing your religion on me, then yes, I guess I am subverting your most basic assumptions.

I don’t believe we should live in a secular society, nor that we do. I believe we should live in a religious one, where everyone is the member of some sect or subscribe to some set of religious beliefs, but where only religions that agree that men are free and given God-given, absolute rights are accepted and tolerated.

I would hope that no person worships themselves or the creation of their hands or their institutions as ideal and perfect, but only the true and living God. If you find yourself worshiping that which is corruptible or that which will one day die, then you are worshiping corruption and death. That is not a good ideal to aspire to.

You try to squelch all semblances of religion all the while proclaiming religious tolerance. “Be religious,” you say, “as long as you are only religious in your churches.” You try to draw an imaginary line around what topics religion can touch, and then wonder why a universal system of beliefs is continually crossing that line, dictating what is right and wrong and acceptable and unacceptable. You fight and kick and try to push religion into the box you have built for it, trying to find some other explanation than simply God for the reason why things are the way they are because you want to be able to create your own reality apart from the one we actually live in.

It doesn’t work that way, and it never has, and it never can.

That is the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative. Conservatives say, “This is the way it is, why bother trying to redefine reality? Let’s live according to Nature’s laws, and make the best with what we have.” Liberals say, “Forget reality, it’s too hard and too difficult to understand. Let’s change reality, redefine in a way that is more advantageous to us. Our words are enough to do this, and we are quite capable of creating systems and forms and institutions that will do what the churches do, but better. When we argue with conservatives, let’s pretend to ascribe to their beliefs, but subtly subvert their most basic assumptions.”

I do not worship democracy. I do not worship the people. I do not worship government.

I worship God.

While government has the power to write laws and execute justice and extract taxes, there are fundamental principles and laws that are God-given and inviolate. It is government’s duty to adhere as strictly as possible to these laws, not set them aside and decide themselves superior to the great Judge and Creator.

I believe that you are partly correct, in that certain rights form the bedrock of a strong liberal democracy. Freedom of speech, assembly, and press, representation in government, and so forth are all necessary rights to preserve democratic institutions.

But beyond that, you’re conceptually incorrect, and centuries of dead philosophers are quite willing to take up my position on the matter. You’re dictating that rights are “God-given and absolute” based on the naturalistic fallacy. Just because things are “good” and “bad” according to your definition or common, modern definitions doesn’t make them “natural” or “God-given” or “absolute”.

And you can certainly believe that God supports democracy, but five hundred years ago, churches declared that kings and queens were given their powers to reign by God as well. Heck, we believed that we could extend these property rights over people for a century, and implicitly wrote slavery into our Constitution! Many people believed that God sanctioned those property rights as well, but those were changed.

Now, as I said before, I’m not *against* property rights as a concept. They should be maintained and respected as a social good. However, the libertarian/conservative approach that property rights are unchangeable objects unto themselves, inalienable rights beyond reproach? Completely untrue. Through our social contract, we can alter, create or destroy the rights we have with the sovereign powers we exercise through our system of government and our social contract. Of course, we need to use this power more responsibly at times, but that doesn’t mean that they are real, tangible objects that are beyond debate or reproach.

The people who are in our society, preaching the futility of God and the silliness of commandments such as, “Thou shall not have no other God before me”, are the enemy to all happiness and righteousness. They move with their intellect, or their guilt, and seek to bring all of us down to their level by abandoning our religion. They mock us, scold us, even persecute us when they can. With false confidence, they proceed to try and destroy everything good.

In a *secular* society, it is up to the individual to decide upon the correct path for happiness and righteousness. Beyond respect for basic human rights, I can no more enforce a moral code on you than you can dictate mine. Nor would I wish to. If you find happiness with the path that you’ve chosen, that’s great.

And if you think that disagreeing with you or maintaining a secular society where people can decide not to follow the tenets of your religion is “persecution”, religious freedom in this country must be really difficult for you.

I sit in amazement reading the words of some so-called conservative in the National Review condemning Ben Stein for daring to stand up for reason in the face of illogical and faith in science by making the movie “Expelled”. As if science and reason were any of the foundations of conservatism!

You are right… reason is NOT the foundation of conservatism. I often sit in amazement when I hear about Republican faith-based economic policies.

And I could argue about Ben Stein’s awful excuse for a Michael Moore movie, but it is so devoid of intellectual content and chock full of blatant, unethical lies that I won’t waste the space here. Perhaps later.

What has science given us, if not more questions and a less sure understanding of reality?

“Less sure understanding of reality”? Tell me that the next time you drive a car, get an MRI, plug in your toaster, talk about economic theory, post on this blog… the list is practically infinite. Science is an inextricable part of modern human culture and society, and allows for a better understanding of reality.

What happens beyond reality? Religion, metaphysics, philosophy can all help to contribute to that, but in the end, there’s a reason why this is called “faith” and “belief”. It’s beyond the realm of experimentation and science. Even the staunchest atheists cannot prove that they are right.

Instead of facts, we are drawn to the inevitable conclusion that logic and reason are incapable of describing the least of the phenonema that occur around us every moment of the day. It uncovered a so-called reality of random variations. Where does it all end up? In contradictions, inexplicable non-patterns, nothingness.

Brilliant! So since quantum physics cannot answer philosophical questions about the meaning of life, it should be fundamentally dismissed as a discipline?

Seriously, until you can collect concentrated God in a test tube and run experiments on Him, science and religion are going to have to remain fundamentally different things. Don’t try to link the two.

Did science and logic ever bring us an ounce of hope, love, or happiness? Does it fill men’s souls and cause them to rejoice? What does it have to offer except cold, hard facts and theories, facts and theories that stand isolated from everything important to people?

Is THAT the job of science and logic? That’s even sillier than if you were to use microbiology to study politics.

Religion, on the other hand, true religion is real. It is very real. It is as real as a beating heart. It is as real as life itself. It is what is at our very core, our center. Yes, true religion is inexplicable through logic and reason and science alone. But that only shows how weak and inexcusable those methods are as religions. Just like a false religion that worships a false God brings no happiness, science and logic are fruitless. But that doesn’t mean that everything is fruitless, since we are able to taste the fruit, even in a small part, throughout our lives.

But the religions that we follow are a personal, individual choice. I should no more prevent you from worshipping God than I should prevent a Muslim from worshipping Allah or a Hindu from following their beliefs.

And I do believe that religion is something that is a very powerful thing, and a source of strength for many people. However, my choices are my own. Don’t assume that you can make them for me, and don’t look down on me for making my own decisions, or else you will be depriving me of the liberty that this country is founded upon.

Still, you’re making as erroneous of an assumption as Richard Dawkins does. Science and faith can complement each other, but they do not *explain* each other. You cannot use science to define the afterlife just as you cannot use faith to learn chemistry.

There is good, and there is evil. There are rights, and there are wrongs. There is a God in heaven, and a Satan in hell.

You’re free to think that! But again, just don’t assume that I follow the same things, or that we should live in a society defined by one type of religious belief.

God did give us a right to our property. He gave us a right to the works of our hands. He gave us a right to self-rule. He does sit in heaven and judge from his throne, destroying the wicked nation and building up the righteous one.

Funny, that. Let’s see… here are two of my favorite passages:

—–

Psalm 24:1-2: The earth is the LORD’S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it. For He has founded it upon the seas And established it upon the rivers.

Luke 20:20-26: Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

He saw through their duplicity and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

—–

Not only that, but paying taxes is mentioned in Romans:

—–

Rom 13:5-7: Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

—–

A theo-political discussion could go into more points about all of this, but my position is that to assume that each and every property right that you have received from our social contract is divinely mandated is false.

What I find quite fascinating is that you don’t even begin to argue these points. Instead, you just dismiss me as a “communist”. How typical of conservatives! So quick to declare that liberals are plagued by “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, yet so slow to realize that they do the same thing by tossing out labels like anyone’s business.

My argument, for those that don’t wish to wade through comments related to education policy, was this:

Again with this argument. I’m honestly sick of hearing about how the government is the source of all evil, especially since it seems to be so one-note and intellectually shallow.

And don’t get me wrong… I also don’t think that the powers of the people should be used for gross adjustments of property rights for drastic economic gain, such as with certain cases where eminent domain was used for local economic development. But falling back to the old canard about the government “stealing” from you is getting tiresome.