OK, OK, due to the high demand and controversy over the issue, I have decided to point you in the direction of the Shantar Blog. But please leave me out of this entirely, I really do not approve of this religion.
As I began trying to answer everyone from yesterday, I saw a general theme there that concerned me. I want to be very clear: I am not saying you shouldn't vote by your conscience or your faith. It is how many of us are guided. It becomes a mistake when our intent is to "take over" a government for our particular religion. And it's a mistake because it is un-American and unconstitutional, even in the most basic sense. But there is nothing wrong with voting for whomever you prefer.
However, the Shantar Blog here confirms a rumor that they will be putting forward a Shantarian Presidential candidate in the upcoming election. If that happens, and he's elected, many people may begin to feel differently about the issue of separation of church and state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
ROFLMAO! I really hope they are kidding though...
I want peace for all Cockroaches too...mmmmmm BTW, where is the roach bait?
That is controversial. Thanks for the insight!
You have to live your beliefs for them to be valid in your life.
That makes it hard to be unbiased on the issues as far as religion goes.
I'm clear back at "you can't make me wear a seat belt, it's unconstitutional".
Have fun with this topic!
Well whoever pulled this religion out of their hats must have spent years in a cockroached infested studio apartment in Harlem, NY---and figured---"Hmmm.....let's worship the roach!" Probably a crackhouse no less.
Seriously. This is a total joke. Come on!
That Tom Cruise just can't help himself, can he?
FUNNY stuff, Saur!!!!!
So this means that Orkin is pure evil?
Uncle Joe, well I believe that it is only evil if applied against them, but it's perfectly acceptable for their Freedom Fighters to use against us. It's not double standards if your god commands it, right?
Jamie Dawn, I know! Tom sure likes staying controversial, doesn't he?
Deb, I dunno if you should mock someone else's faith so readily...
Old Slick, I think Vonnegut was on to something. There's no doubt that there are some things to take seriously, but we often take too much stuff seriously.
Valerie, ah well, you ride a motorcycle, right? So the point's pretty moot anyway. ;o)
Lee Ann, any time! Glad to be of service.
Mallory, although roach bait might give them permanent peace, I don't think that's the peace they're referring to. But who am I to say? I'm hardly an expert on the Shantarian faith.
Well, except for the funny names, the subjugation of women and the defense of cockroaches, this is pretty sane. I mean, it's like all other politics: bland to the point of meaningless.
Somehow I could never trust in a person that worshipped cockroaches as their God.... besides being silly beyond measure, I'd rather worship my exterminator for keeping the buggers out of my home.
By the way.... I went over to the link and couldn't help but think you had so cleverly put that site together, or you have some serious problems in Tampa between the Scientologists and Shantars. How right am I on this one?
Let me just say Saur that I believe what Kathryn Harris is doing would be called dominionism, and I'm not so sure this is a good thing either. Dominionism tries to legislate Christian views through the political process. Christianity doesn't work this way; it brings liberty to the soul first through a change of heart, and then that liberty expands outwardly to create a climate of liberty in the political arena.
Dominionism seeks to do it backwards.
Dominonism sounds good to most Christians because it espouses our views, and we like that. But in my opinion the only way to effect real change in the political arena for Biblical principles is to change people's hearts first, and that can only be done through a one on one experience with Jesus Christ. Dominionism is trying to do through the political process what we Christians have been too lazy to do; win the hearts and minds of the people we come in contact with by our Christian lifestyle and example, so that they will want who we have---Jesus. We are now paying the price for our apathy towards the lost.
I don't discount at all what I wrote previously. This is just another angle I didn't address earlier. I still believe our Christian Heritage should be defended. But what we Christians need to do now more than ever is to evangelize, not so much to legislate. The hearts of those we are trying to force legislation on need to experience a spiritual change first, and then moral legislation won't be viewed as coercion because they will be able to govern themselves inwardly by the Sprit of God; and then that inward governance will be in agreement with the outward legislation.
I would like to ask you about your statement above: It becomes a mistake when our intent is to "take over" a government for our particular religion.
Lets be honest. Of course everybody wants their own ideology to dominate government. The question is which ideology is the right ideology, and which way is best to go about it. From what I've written above, I think my position is clear on these questions.
What particular ideology do you think should dominate our political process? An atheistic one or a Christian one?
Excerpt from America's Providential History:
God's path to political liberty is from the internal to the external. God's desire is for an external expression of His Kingdom on earth. Yet it must first begin in the heart of man, and then it will naturally express itself externally in all aspects of society.
The Bible reveals that where the "Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2 Corinthians 3:17).When the Spirit of the Lord comes into the heart of a man, that man is liberated. Likewise, when the Spirit of the Lord comes into a nation, that nation is liberated. The degree to which the Spirit of the Lord is infused into a society (through its peoples, laws, and institutions), is the degree to which that society will experience liberty in every realm.(civil, religious, economic, etc.)
Christ came to set us free (Gal. 5: 1,3). Spiritual freedom or liberty ultimately produces political freedom. External political slavery reflects internal spiritual bondage.
I won't pester you anymore on this. I just had more to say.
Very well written, bryan.
I agree.
Brian, Brilliant, and completely correct in all ways. I can't argue with it.
But,
You wrote: Lets be honest. Of course everybody wants their own ideology to dominate government. The question is which ideology is the right ideology, and which way is best to go about it.
This is true, and honest of you. I won't deny that this is what people want. But the purpose of the Constitution was to rise above what people want, so that people of differering faiths could live together.
Of course we all think that we know best, or we'd adapt our views to what we truly do believe. But we also must fairly admit that others (who believe differently than we do) also feel that they know best. This is why leaving religious acquisition or imposition out of politics is necessary.
This doesn't mean we check our ideals at the door. What it does mean is that we don't attempt to take over the government or the country for our particular faith.
Again, let me say, a beautifully written post on your part.
The Shantar remind me a bit of the Church of the Sub-Genius but without the humor value.
I have to say, I'm surprised and impressed by your viewpoint on this issue.
Post a Comment