Religion AND Politics? We’re in the War Zone!

Bible gun

I believe that every blog’s basic purpose should be respected. Gay Patriot, for example, wants to be a political blog and not a religious one. From time to time, the bloggers may choose to post an item sharing some insight into their own faith, but as it’s their blog, they reserve that right. That’s not for their commenters to determine.

The subject of religion is brought up there repeatedly, of course, by commenters who can’t resist referring to Christians opposed to same-sex unions or full gay inclusion as if they are the only Christians who exist. My primary point there was that this is not true. I have made that point, and now I’m perfectly content to let the subject rest there.

On Born on 9-11, however, politics and religion often mingle. I do this because I see the two subjects as inextricably intertwined. It may be better if they weren’t, but they have been since long before I started commenting about the situation. Such is the case all over the world today, and even if I didn’t write about it, I doubt other people will stop mixing the two.

It’s a highly volatile mix. Anywhere religion and politics are brought together becomes a war zone. Well, Born on 9-11 is very much a war zone.

As this is my blog, I do reserve the right to set down some rules. Anyone who disagrees with me is free to comment to that effect. But if I feel they’re crossing the line from commentary to haranguing or harassment – merely perpetuating a conflict simply for the sake of making trouble, rather than to further honest debate – I will cut them off. Again, on my blog I have every right to do that.

A troll is someone who disrupts discourse on a blog in an attempt to destroy the blog. People who merely disagree are not trolls, even when they do a good job of presenting their argument. Especially when they do a good job of presenting their argument. Unlike some of the commenters at Gay Patriot and many other blogs, I do not equate effective dissent from my convictions with trolling.

There will be rules of engagement in this war, though, as it is fought on my blog. Nuts who simply show up to scream that I’m going to Hell will be banned. They certainly don’t lack opportunities to do that elsewhere. If every other venue affording them the chance to express their views is banned, then we can all worry about that together. And believe me, as a libertarian, I would then do something more than simply worry.

I do not agree, by any means, with all libertarians on everything. We are a contentious lot, and outside the narrow range of subjects we believe are the proper province of government, we disagree about many matters. What some people fail to understand about libertarians is that since we don’t believe in dragging government into every area of life, for us most issues fall outside the scope of political opinion. This is exactly why we feel so free to squabble about every topic we consider non-political.

I doubt Ron Paul and I, for example, would see eye-to-eye on issues such as same-sex unions performed in church, or full inclusion of gays in Christian congregations. Were we (however improbably) to be members of the same church, we’d likely lock horns over women’s ordination. I don’t think he interprets the Bible the same way I do, which is one of the reasons we’d probably never find ourselves in the same church.

I respect Ayn Rand’s views on many matters. But both Dr. Paul and I disagree vehemently with her opinions on religion. We’re libertarians, and we love to argue.

This is a libertarian blog, so arguments are always welcome. It’s a war zone, but it’s MY war zone. That means we’re all going to follow my rules.

In my own little empire, I get to be the empress. I’m not too strict a libertarian to like that!

About heine911

I'm an Episcopalian, Classical Liberal Ladies' Woman, helping to save Western civilization, searching for the perfect wife and enjoying every minute of it all.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Religion AND Politics? We’re in the War Zone!

  1. Sandhorse says:

    I used to be a hard line 1st A’er. The wall I imagined was impenetrable. By that I mean I believed I and all my fellow citizens must leave our spiritual convictions at the door when making political decisions.

    However, not long ago, I realized that was not only impossible to do, it was also inappropriate. In this country we should be free to vote on our principles; whether their based in a spiritual passion, or secular.

    Having said that; I think, as a Christian, we go wrong whenever we allow ministers and churches to influence our decisions in taking wrong ground in regard to any question involving human rights. The church, as the bride, still has a lot of prep work to do before the groom arrives. Time and time again, the church as a whole has had to find (or be brought back to) its center.

    My biggest gripe of late is the Christians who seem to think Christianity should have preferential status in the US. They all use different strategies and have varying motivations for achieving this goal. But I fear that should such a paradigm come to pass, it would be a blow to both Christianity and the United States.

    I’ve come to believe that true Christianity thrives on adversity and grows under oppression. Not the examples ‘Mainstream American Christians’ (MACs) would call ‘oppression and adversity’, but what early Roman Christians would call oppression.

    Here in the US, Christians have lived under a government that has, intentionally or not, given Christians favored status. And what has the byproduct of this mentality brought us? The likes of Tony Perkins, Bryan Fisher, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, etc. and the Manhattan Declaration; a more cantankerous lot of screaming babies I could not imagine.

    I’m not trying to undermine the heritage of faith our country has had, and grown from. But I think even the most ‘evangelical’ of the founding fathers had the wisdom to see that when Christianity it placed on a pedestal, it becomes divorced from its core purpose. A Christian government would be an oppressive government. Countless historical examples can be found, some of which from, the founding fathers weren’t far removed.

    You’ve described many times ‘Those Who Know Better’ as robbers and thieves. While I don’t disagree, I believe lining their pockets is only secondary. Their primary purpose is to fill in for God since He is obviously not doing His job when he lets the rain fall on the just AND (in their mind) the unjust. God’s blessings may flow to all, but not before it passes through their evangelical filter.

    In doing so, they mock God, place their faith in government, and try to make the populace in their image.

    End of my minor rant.

    P.S. Thanks Lori, for providing this space to share politics AND religion. Their an odd couple, but necessarily intertwined.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s