Philosophy

There is another reason the conservatives are using the Catholic Church to fight legalized abortionis because they cannot separate their politics from their religion. Many of these individuals wrap their religion in a flag, so to speak, and call it politics. They try to force everyone to follow their extremist philosophy.

Some of them even resort to violence when they fail. They claim that they are fighting for those who are too weak to fight for themselves. But the only thing that they are doing is distorting the word of God. They are using the word of God to fulfill their own fundamentalist and terrorist goals.

God is a peaceful God. God would never choose violence as method of influencing someone into obeying the law, for violence begets violence. Those who choose war, aggression and violence as a method of settling disputes only succeed in creating more havoc. They have a perverted philosophy, and they are doing more harm to religion than all the godless atheists combined.

I am not trying to exalt the liberal philosophy. Many are the times when one hears about some liberal trying to destroy the peace with his extremist beliefs. For example, it was liberals who got laws passed that prevented the Lord’s Prayer from being recited in public school by our children.

This prayer is a universal prayer. It is not a Christian prayer, a Jewish prayer or an Islamic prayer. It simply asks “Our Father, who art in heaven . . . to give us our daily bread and to forgive us our trespasses.” That is all it does. It does not endorse any one particular faith. It endorses a belief in God and endorses ALL religions simultaneously.

One knows this because all three major faiths pray to God our Father. All three major faiths call Abraham Father. Since these three faiths make up the majority of citizens, then not to have a universal prayer which all three faiths could recite would be to give in to atheism and extremism.

While it is true that the government must protect the rights of the minority, it is also true that the state must protect the rights of the majority from the aggression of the extremists.

For example, there are those individuals who do not believe that Adolf Hitler murdered millions of Jews. These extremists want their beliefs taught in school. But the government cannot allow lies to be taught to its children. Thus, the state – while allowing these extremists to believe as they will – gives in to the will of the majority and teaches its children of the atrocities of Hitler.

The same is true with reciting the Lord’s Prayer in public school, teaching theology in public school and observing religious holidays in public school. Such is not giving preference to any particular faith. It is endorsing all religions simultaneously.

All religions are an expression of man’s attempt to understand God. It is an act of injustice against mankind for the state to prevent someone from learning about God. The government does not have the right to give preference to any particular faith but it does have a moral obligation to its citizens to teach basic theological truths. This is especially true of those beliefs and truths taught by all religions.

By teaching theology, reciting the Lord’s Prayer and observing religious holidays the state is recognizing God’s existence and introducing Him to its citizens.

Nor is the government endorsing a particular religion by allowing the Lord’s Prayer in public school. Such would only happen if the government allowed a particular Catholic prayer, Christian prayer, Jewish prayer, Islamic prayer, someone’s personal prayer or something similar in public school.

But by allowing our children to recite a universal prayer, the government is acknowledging the existence and superiority of God and endorsing all religions simultaneously. To endorse all religions simultaneously is not a violation of the law. The only people who would object to this would be atheists and those with extremist beliefs.

Somehow many individuals in government – especially in the Supreme Court – have gotten the idea that there can be no reference to God on public property for such is endorsing religion. However, the First Amendment says in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

This means that the government cannot set up or endorse a particular church or religion. It also means that the state cannot prevent one from following a particular religious belief – no matter how popular or unpopular that belief may be. It does not mean that the government cannot allow universal acknowledgment of God’s existence through a universal prayer. It does not mean that the government cannot allow the simultaneous endorsement of all religions.

When the state acknowledges God’s existence it is not endorsing a particular religion or faith. It is endorsing all religions and all faiths simultaneously! To simultaneously endorse all religions would not be a violation of the law.

Those who would claim that the simultaneous endorsement of all religions is discriminatory against atheism are only looking at half of the picture. By giving into atheism and not allowing acknowledgement of God’s existence and/or the simultaneous endorsement of all religions in public places, the government is discriminating against the many who believe in the existence of God for the sake of the rare few who do not believe in any God. The government is endorsing an extremist belief against the beliefs of the majority.

Thus, the state can either discriminate against the many or against the rare few. It must make a choice. If the state does not allow the reciting of a universal prayer, the teaching of theology or observance of religious holidays, then it is discriminating against the many. If the state allows such, then it is discriminating against the rare few.

It is rare to find someone who believes that it is alright to allow children to grow up without receiving a proper education. It is rare to find someone who believes that it is alright for adults to have sex with children or to have children depicted in sexually explicit poses.

In each of these types of rare incidents the courts have ruled against the extremist and in favor of the majority. Simultaneous endorsement of all religions is no different. The state must follow the will of the majority and discriminate against the rare few. The government must rule against the atheist.

With every law there is a restriction of freedom. But there must be some laws or there would be no peace. Thus, some people must lose (surrender) their freedom for the sake of peace. For example, I’m sure if one looks long enough he will find that there are some individuals who believe that it ought to be lawful have sex with children or that it ought to be lawful to illustrate children naked.

But for every person who believes in these extremist’s ideas, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, who believe that these actions ought to remain unlawful. This is a classic example of where the will of the majority must prevail over the desire of the extremist. The same may be said of a universal prayer in public school, teaching theology and observing religious holidays.

As I have said on several other web pages at this site, the road to peace on Earth is not strictly a liberal path or conservative path or even a moderate path. The road to peace on Earth is sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative and sometimes moderate. But it never follows an extremist path.

It is up to us to find the correct road to follow through peaceful negotiations with those who hold a different point of view. Those representatives who come to the negotiations must not have any hidden agenda or alternative goal. They must be totally truthful in everything they do and say and their goal must be equality and justice for all.

The Lord’s Prayer