How religion is not about religion

At one time, yes. Religion might have been about the metaphysical before metaphysics was even coined. But with the coming of Enlightenment and the evolution of science which has poked holes into religious ideology since, we have seen that religion can not merely say "so be it, so it shall be done". Religion has also evolved into a more politically charged entity (it seems) because before; religion was the body politic. With the formation of the United States of America (with all its faults in the beginning) arose a great secular nation that truly allowed for real freedom from religion and freedom in general for it's citizens. Maybe for the first time in our recognizable history as human beings people could practice whatever religion they so chose to. However, an environment of polarity has reared it's ugly face and invaded the halls of government and it is screaming aloud now.

Abortion...stem-cell research...gay marriage...faith-based initiatives...Islamo-fascists...godless liberals...

The list goes on. And they are all keywords. To what? Let's take this into perspective.

Abortion. Who has them and who doesn't? Statistically Christians have as many abortions as anybody else...except for Catholics who have more abortions than anybody else. A consensus snapshot, yet the picture is pretty damn clear. Abortion is just fine for the majority. So a political opposition is the only avenue to take to fight it. When parents and clergy can't persuade people not to have abortions then I guess we turn to our lawmakers.

Stem-cell research. Polls show that a majority of the American people favor more federal funding for it. Again a consensus, yet the same argument goes round and round just like the abortion debate, with the opposition disregarding the consensus view.

Gay marriage. Now I haven't looked into this issue in quite a while, but I have time and again heard and read that allowing same sex unions would forever destroy the sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family. First of all I would doubt very highly that there would be very many churches out there that would ceremonially wed a same sex couple. So it is definitely political because if you allow same sex couples to be recognized by the state then they get the same benefits provided to opposite sex couples (like taxes, health and legal recognition). Secondly I think that people in general can destroy the sanctity of the institution of the family very well on their own (without gays in the equation); looked at divorce rates lately?

Faith-based initiatives. This is a sore spot for me. Because I really do recognize what this is about. It's about trying to integrate religious institutions into the secular non-profit sector (for which I work for one). Now, let's assume that religious institutions are sincerely up to snuff without receiving federal moneys (oh yeah, that's your money too). They would be able to provide all kinds of services to the community IF ONLY THEY COULD GET THE MONEY!!! Money that comes from donors. Donors that are invariably members of whatever congregation. This one is a fucking no-brainer. If people don't donate or tithe their earnings "enough", I guess that institution is shit out of luck in administering said services. But, nope let's let them sidle up to Uncle Sam for hand-outs. And allow WAY more efficient organizations (like the one I work for) pay the price by receiving less in grants. So, then the federal government lets churches that are "non-profits" have our tax dollars so they can administer services to people in the community...so long as they are Christian (as is the hiring practice of the Salvation Army). I did say that I recognize what this is about and I mentioned secular non-profits. Because that is our operandi at my workplace. We are a community action agency and I pride myself of the work we all do there. Wow, I almost went on a spree of touting caa, but that's not what this post is about.

Hilarious. I was in an uproar for a minute. Then I thought about the work I do and it faded away. I love my job, truly.

So I guess, with a little less rage and oomph....

Islamo-fascists. A misnomer. I always thought of fascism as being defined as "super" patriotism. Because, for one I've looked for definitions online and no definition seems to concise about it, so in a nut-shell (from everything I've found definitively) I will define it as super-patriotism. So, I guess you could say Islamo-fascist, but you could also say American-fascist. The connotation speaks for itself. The coining of this term was just another way to scare people with "terrorism" and goes to the root of the problems in the world today. Cultural seclusion and isolationism. Just like that which occurs within religious organizations. If for some reason you don't agree with church doctrine then you just don't belong. On the flip-side, if you "threaten" our church doctrine then...we will become even more secluded and isolated...and pissed off too. However, I would argue that it is not indeed about religious conflict. It IS about national "interest" disguised thereof and in various other forms. Religion is not about religion. It's about politics plain and simple.

Godless liberals. Interesting...