Religion of Politics

At the time of this writing North Carolinians are heading to their respective voting stations. Among the offices and positions on the ballots is a (perceived or actual) controversial amendment. If you do not know what I’m talking about, we need to have a different conversation. If you are aware of your surroundings, however, and what is going on in the world of religion as politics, I do not wish to change your political affiliation (evident by the fact that this is being posted the day after the primary), but only hope to conduce thought.

Concerning the officials: Do not be fooled by the (self-contradicting) laws of politics; for example, the law which states that a politician is subject to change his/her opinion dependant on to whom he/she is speaking. Or the law which insists that hypocrisy is always found in what my opponents say and do. Ironically, the laws of politics demand that there are no absolutes; save for those to which my opponents must adhere. A key variable in these laws of politics is based on the degree in which the voters – the public at large – are ignorant; not only concerning the facts of the matter, but also concerning the definition of ignorance (i.e. uninformed) itself.

As is the case concerning religion, when we are ignorant of the laws of politics at least two things result: First, we (the people) are but numbers to be manipulated by differing math formulas and equations in the hopes of ultimate control of the populous by the institution and, secondly, we (the people) believe or disbelieve everything we hear based on who (what party, race, religion, etc.) is speaking. Like the old psychoanalysis which explained that we were all abused in our childhood but simply suppressed the memory, we become self-induced victims because we allow someone or something else to think for us. There is an old adage which states, “If we are ignorant of history we are destined to repeat it.” Worse yet, I think, is the fact that, if we are ignorant of history, then someone can come along and re-write it.

There are deeper issues involved with Amendment One than the overly simplistic notion that this is about homosexuals. Emotions are not logical and, therefore, do not result from a thought process (but, rather, the lack thereof). Do not be fooled by hyper-emotionalism because it does not necessitate thought. The “Christian” argument is ridiculous simply because we have differing interpretations of the Scriptures, and (obviously) differ on to what degree the Cross of Christ is effectual. [Incidentally, the phrase “the Bible says…” is an insufficient and manipulative argument because it is your interpretation of what the Bible says.] Do not be fooled by (so-called) “Christian Ethics/Morals” because they are inconsistent and conveniently selective. While it is true that we cannot legislate morality (forcing what is “right” by making illegal what is “wrong”), it is also a fact that we cannot make “truth” relative. Do not confuse opinion with fact, and proof with conjecture. And “Freedom” does not mean I can do anything I want.

Do not be fooled, regardless of where you stand politically; despite your opinion on Amendment One, God stands on neither side. God is neither “Republican nor Democrat” (and neither is God “Independent,” but only in the absolute theological sense). God does not side with “pro” agendas of any kind (simply because they are in fact self-serving agendas). God does not favor, in spite of reports to the contrary, any separation of humanity what-so-ever. The fact that we have before us Amendment One, and the fact that “politics” is excused from common decency (not to mention the Laws of Logic), proves only the depths of depravity and alienation in which humanity lives, and nothing else. Vote with your conscious and voice your opinion, but know what they are first, and know that they are precisely that – yours.

Comments are closed.