HiddenMysteries: Fealty

"God... has formed us moral agents... that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own."
—Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) to Miles King, 1814.

by Richard Girard

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Gospel of Matthew 22:21, King James Bible.

"Reason is our soul’s left hand, Faith her right, By these we reach divinity." John Donne (c. 1572–1631), English divine, metaphysical poet. Verse Letter to the Countess of Bedford (c. 1607–8).

“It is as absurd to argue men, as to torture them, into believing.” Cardinal John Newman (1801–90), English churchman, theologian. Sermon, 11 Dec. 1831, Oxford, England.

This is an open letter to the former Governor of the State of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee.

Governor, where do your primary loyalties lie: with the United States Constitution or your Southern Baptist version of the Christian religion? If your answer is the latter—and certainly your recent comments in Michigan about changing the Constitution so it fits your interpretation of God's Law indicates this is the case—then you should withdraw from the Presidential race immediately.

You will note that I did not ask you to choose between God and the Constitution. God is far above and beyond your religious denomination (or mine), or any other human belief system. If God exists, and like you, I believe the Deity, in whatever form, does; God—Infinite and Eternal—can be described by we corporeal mortals poorly at best, through use of analogy and our very limited human language. And too often, our limited ability to express our individual experience of the Deity, forces us—in our hubris—to attempt to limit God when trying to describe our experience.

So by what right, upon whose authority, do you seek to impose your beliefs, and your notion of righteousness and moral judgement upon your fellow citizens?

All religions, Christian or otherwise, with their dogmas, doctrines, interpretations, and theology are the creations of humanity, not of the Deity. Claims of moral or theological supremacy by one religious organization or another is, in practical and rational terms, a matter of that religion's leaders seeking moral and political power over other human beings.

Epistemologically, it is not within the sphere of our human ability to reason to actually know (not believe, but know) which is God's true, or even preferred, faith or faiths. A declaration of this nature presupposes knowledge of the Infinite Mind of God by the very finite mind of man. To profess such beliefs as knowledge, rather than belief, is the height of arrogant presumption by any human being.

By what conceit does anyone say the Roman Catholic faith is preferred by God to that of the Southern Baptists; the Methodist creed is preferred to that of the Russian Orthodox Church; that Judaism is preferred to any of the Calvinist denominations; or the precepts of the United Church of Christ are preferred by God to Buddhism? Rationally, no human can, in good conscience, make an indisputable claim for any such belief, let alone describe it as knowledge. Governor, to try to force such a belief upon your fellow American citizens, by amending our Constitution, is a proposition I find morally reprehensible.

Governor, I am certain you (and those who share your wrongheaded beliefs) will try to use the Holy Bible to support your position, citing both its inerrancy and the “fact” that it is the literal “Word of God.”

Might I inquire which version of the Bible you claim this transcendent position for? The Torah, the Old Testament as a whole, the Catholic (or Douay) Bible, or one of the Protestant Bibles? If any of these, which translation: the King James or Revised Standard in English, Luther's in German, the Vulgate in Latin, the original Greek of the New Testament and Hebrew of the Old? And how may we make an informed, unbiased choice in this matter that is independent of the Bible, and a particular denomination's theology?

In the translation and transmission of whichever Bible you may choose, through so many generations; how can you be sure no error was made in its translation or transmission, either by accident or intent? I am reminded that Cinderella's slippers went from being fur (fourrure) to glass (verriere), when the fairy tale was translated from spoken French into written English.

I can point to the Bible's best known error in the mistranslation of The Book of Isaiah, chapter 7, verse 14. This error has, through the office of the Christian churches, influenced Western history for two millennium; “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

It is the word “virgin” that is translated incorrectly here. I will quote from Asimov's Guide to The Bible, Two Volumes in One, Isaac Asimov, copyright ©1981 by Isaac Asimov, page 592, “In Hebrew, the word so translated [to virgin] is almah and this is actually used to refer to a young woman who might or might not be a virgin. The Hebrew language has a specific word (bethulah) for 'virgin,' but that is not used here.”

This mistranslation of virgin—if I remember correctly from my studies over the last thirty years—arose originally when scholars were putting together the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament by seventy scholars from Hebrew to Greek in the Third Century, B.C.E. The translators (who were Jews translating the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek, which was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean at the time) incorrectly used the Greek word parthenos (meaning virgin) in the translation.

Admittedly, any single error in a translation does not mean that there are additional errors in a given text. However, a single error does preclude any possible claim for inerrancy of that text, or its translation. It is humankind's ability to make these mistakes in translation, transmission, or interpretation, both intentional and unintentional, which makes additional errors not only possible but also probable.

Anyone who has studied the history of the Council of Nicaea, is aware that the ambitions and vanity of human beings, not God, had far more influence on the translations, transmissions, and selections of which books are accepted as canonical by the Christian faith, than did the Will of God. The bishops and theologians at Nicaea were much more interested in pleasing Constantine the Great, and cementing the Church's position as the official faith of the Roman Empire, than they were with the perfect transmission of the Bible. I am certain that many of those worthies consoled themselves in their expedience with the belief that once they firmly established the Church, they could go back and correct the errors caused by their expedience.

If Paris is worth a Mass, as Henri of Navarre once said, then how much more is an extant Roman Empire worth? The mind boggles.

There is also the question of what constitutes God's Word? According to a literal reading of the Gospel According to John, God's word is not any version of the Bible, but is instead embodied by Jesus of Nazareth.

Governor, is it not better to inspire the American people to a more moral existence by living your life by Jesus' teachings (not the second-hand interpretation of Paul of Tarsus or others), than trying to force your interpretation of those teachings down their throat? Let us permit our fellow Americans to sin what sins they will, rather than force them to live by either of our interpretations of righteousness which any honest, self-aware person admits may be wrong. Let us forgive their trespasses as we pray God forgives our own, rather than force them into some unwilling trespass because of our pride.

Years ago I was told that real faith is an endless cycle of faith, doubt, and reaffirmation of faith. I was not surprised when I read that a religious paragon like Mother Theresa had ceased praying fifty years before her death, because of her own doubts.

Many people get stuck in different parts of that cycle. If they are stuck in the doubt aspect they become atheists, agnostics, cynics or skeptics. If they become stuck in the reaffirmation part of the this cycle, they become perpetual seekers after meaning in their lives, flitting from religion to religion until they find something that strikes a responsive chord within their hearts.

If they are stuck in the faith part of the cycle, they become pedantic drones, repeating dogma and doctrine without question or understanding by rote, attacking those who disagree with them, and unwilling to accept God's gifts if that gift contradicts the tenets of their faith.

The person who is stuck in the faith part of the cycle has beliefs that are reminiscent of the joke about the Born-again Christian who is stuck on the roof of his house during a flood, praying for Jesus to save him. A boat comes by and attempts to rescue him, but he drives them away, telling his erstwhile rescuers he is waiting for Jesus to save him. The floodwaters continue to rise, and soon a helicopter appears and attempts to rescue him from his roof. He drives these rescuers off, telling them he is waiting for Jesus to save him. Shortly thereafter, his house is torn from its foundation by a surge, and the Born-again Christian falls in the floodwaters and drowns. His soul soon arrives in heaven, where St. Peter admits him through the Pearly Gates, and he finds Jesus just inside those gates, comforting the victims of this flood. He walks up to Jesus and asks, “Lord, I prayed and prayed for You to save me from the flood waters. Why didn't you do anything to save me?” Jesus looks at him with sad eyes and says, “I sent you a boat and a helicopter.”

The Founding Fathers left any mention of God, Jesus, or Christianity out of the Constitution for a very good reason: They did not want the Constitution to be used to oppress any religion, denomination, or sect. This is clearly demonstrated by the last clause of Article VI of the Constitution, “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States (italics are mine).” My theory is further supported by George Washington's language in the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), which included the clause, “...that in no sense is the United States a Christian Nation…” John Adams submitted the signed treaty with Tripoli to the Senate, which ratified the treaty unanimously, making it the law of the land.

The Founders were well versed in the use of religion to oppress the people of a nation. It was less than three centuries since Luther had started the Reformation by posting his Ninety-five Theses on the cathedral door at Worms, and one hundred and fifty years since Cromwell and Charles I had fought the English Civil War over religion. It had only been a century since the Puritans had burned witches in Massachusetts and Louis XIV had revoked the Edict of Nantes, driving the Protestant Huguenots out of France. The Founders did not want a repetition of this religious strife in the United States, and did all they could to prevent it, while permitting the people the broadest possible freedom of conscience.

Governor Huckabee, seventeen centuries ago the prelates and theologians at the Council of Nicaea wrongly chose to literally render unto Caesar those things that properly were God's. Your proposal to amend the Constitution to mirror “God's Law” is equally wrong, rendering unto God those things that are rightly Caesar's. It is morally wrong to attempt to force any single religion or denomination's interpretation of God's Will upon the rest of our nation. In so doing, you risk condemning their souls along with your own if you are wrong. Leave matters of religion and spirituality to our individual consciences. Demonstrate the “superiority” of your own system of belief by your actions and tolerance when you interact with those whose beliefs are different from your own.

In following this proposal, you will best serve both Caesar and Christ, as well as your fellow citizens.

God bless us all,

Richard Girard

http://www.opednews.com/

Authors Bio: Richard Girard is an increasingly radical representative of the disabled and disenfranchised members of America's downtrodden. His fondest desire is to be the one to arrest Bush and Cheney after they leave office in 2009.

http://hiddenmysteries.com/xcart/product.php?productid=17592

Fealty

Tuesday, January 29 2008 @ 01:17 AM CST