My Wise Generation

A comment was made to me in passing today by a man in his twenties. "I do not mind what the religious feel or who they decide to worship, just as long as they don't try to force it down my throat we will be okay." This comment was made after I had rebuked an intolerant statement made that all religious people "are narrow minded and do not respect the viewpoints of others."

It does not matter who the individual was that made the statement, it is often opined by many in my generation today. The religious are allowed to be religious, just not religious in the public forum. The argument, clearly, is that the religious have a bias and cannot leave that bias out of the discussion.

The reality hits hard to the individual when he is told that all individuals have a bias. It's just that many are much easier to influence than others. It is true that the religious hold certain convictions - thus convincing them of something relating to morality does become more difficult. When those of my generation make this statement they are demanding that the religious censor their acting on true feelings about issues.

The truth is no man can remove their beliefs of morality from an argument or from their political stances. The man who argues against the 'religious right' against the idea of abortion takes the stance of being for abortion. There is no amoral position on this point, one is either for it, or against it. Now one may state they are for it but argue against it, but it is actions that are the determining factor of beliefs. If that man follows through with the allowance of abortion then his convicting stance is that abortion is justified. I cannot say Jesus is lord but worship at the altar of Buddha. Even the modern day man constantly accuses the religious of not following their religion by stating they do not practice it. It is by their deeds that their convictions are espoused. Both the religious and the irreligious see this to be true.

The religious person is easier to spot, and ultimately that is what it comes down too. When he states he is religious, society immediately raises a red flag on that mans stances. "He will make his decisions based upon God!" or "He will have a pre-disposed position on murderers!" Who, then is the one making the pre-judgment? It is society. The man above made the judgment that religion has no place in the world on the public forum. The further censorship of the stances of the religious is only to be expected. As if because a man believes in God, his convictions of morality are less valid. Yet when tested directly, the godless man can rarely even defend his own moral convictions.

Society has deemed that religious morality is no longer allowed in the public realm. Yet morality arrived at without religion still stands. Ironically, it is through intolerance that tolerance is preached. Let me challenge the reader to consider these two points. First if the convictions of the religious are barred from the realm of the public, how is this tolerance? Secondly, if jurys and judges should be positioned based upon their non-existence of convictions, how then can they possibly judge a mans deeds? Does it not just leave their perceptions open to the most convincing arguer? You have and will continue to see this in America today.

"When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalms 11:3)

Craig Chamberlin