Before I discuss this topic, you might wish to know about some of my own beliefs.I am a professing, confessing Christian: an "Edinburgh Catholic". What's that? Well, the so-called "Catholic" is really a "Roman Catholic", where the word "catholic" means "worldwide". I'm an Edinburgh Catholic, that is, a Presbyterian -- by intention, not by birth, because my father was then a minister of the Southern Methodist Church, but left that (after death of his mother) to go back to working in parks. In particular, in my Church, every communicant can be a priest to another communicant. The minister is simply "the teaching elder", which is why he or she wears an academic gown. And I do not accept Second-Class "citizenship", requiring a priest to interceed between me and my God.
At age 6, I began to attend the College Hill Presbyterian Church of Tulsa, OK, with a friend, the grandson of the minister. At 7, I joined the Church with him -- and was punished for this. My statement that I had my parents permission was a lie, because I knew my dressmaker mother would oppose it. When I got home that morning, a customer had told her about my joining. Mom cut a branch from a peach tree and whipped my legs until they bled. Why? Well, you may have heard that Suthners say "damn yankee" is one word: "damyankee". My mother thought three words fused into one: "richpresbyteriansnobs". But some of her customers were Presbyterians, so she had to curb her resistance. Later, in Springfield, MO, the elders in all the Presbyterian churches I tried to attend would not let me attend church services, thinking this would force me to bring one or more of my parents. So I've sat on the steps of many of their churches -- in rain, snow, hot sunshine -- listening to the sermon. So, rather than a born-Presbyterian, I'm an in-spite-of-Presbyterian.
Early on, I became interested in Presbyterian history. I learned that Presbyterian John Witherspoon was the only clergyman signing "The Declaration of Independence" and "The Constitution". (You'll learn this in the 1960 film, "1776", based upon the stage musical, which was revived in 2000.) He preached a sermon in a general's uniform, then joined Washington's Army as Chaplain. Because of Witherspoon and others, the American Revolution was sometimes called "The Presbyterian Revolution".
I read that the Presbyterian Cavalray had defeated Cromwell's forces, but accepted his word and rode back to Scotland. Going back on his word, Cromwell forced a fight and defeated them, allowing him to lead the Puritan Revolution, the beheading of King Charles, and Puritan hegemony in the American Colonies. As some historians have noted, many of Royalists escaped from England to America to settle in the South and beget the "Fathers of Our Country", Washington, Madison, Mason, Monroe, etc. So the "Fundamentalists" who now challenge so much of our Constitutional government are descendants (at least, theologically) of the Puritans, challenging those who are descendants (at least, theologically) of Scottish Presbyterians and similar resisters.
Another problem I find with contemporary "religious right-wingers" concerns public prayer. One of the most important (but apparently ignored ) passages in The New Testament is in Matthew, Chapter 6 (KJV), beginning with Verses 5-6, in an injunction from Jesus:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." Then at Verse 9, "After this manner pray ye: 'Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be this name.'" The "Lord's Prayer" then continues.Understand? Don't pray openly in the schools and in public places, but "enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...". WHY IS JESUS WRONG? Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell seems to be saying Jesus is wrong. Senators and Representatives seem to be saying that Jesus is wrong.
What bothers me most about this is their implicit rejection of secret prayer. What next? Will they also attack the secret ballot? I'm bothered by the apparent suggestion that only collective prayer is acceptable. I remind you that, historically, communism and the first communes began among early Christians! "To each his own." But don't force this collectivism on me! Yes, I participate in prayer during church service. But I interpret it as ccomparable to collective hymn singing. I don't feel that collective praying is real praying, which I can only do in secret. Maybe you'll give in on this, but I won't. And, in the furor about having "Ten Commandment" monuments or plaques in public places, who notices that five or more versions of "The Ten Commandments" exist.
The great blessing I derived from my Presbyterian adoption is the notion of "Stewardship". Not just financially, but that everything I have -- possessions, talents, etc. -- I owe in service to others. I also regard myself as a "Second Covenant Christian", a reference to the saying of Jesus, at "The Last Supper": "This is the cup of the Second Covenant". To me, that means I am not committed to the Biblical "First Covenant", which, among other terms, implicitly supports slavery and supression of women.
Given all my reading, I "look over my shoulder" to see if the theocrats of Judaism threaten; "look over my shoulder" to see if Roman Catholic fanatics wish to revive The Inquisition; "look over my shoulder" to see if modern Puritans wish to revive religious persecution and witchcraft trials. And I also "look over my shoulder" at the Gnostics, who infiltrated the Temple in the Second Century AD and distorted "sacred texts". These distortions were supposed to be found and corrected. But one passage makes me wonder -- in Matthew, Chapter 21, Verses 18-19, wherein Jesus uncharacteristically curses a fig tree that has no figs for him, causing it to wither and die. (Consider the word-trickery of the Gnostics -- who hate their humanness -- of making us believe that "agnostic" means "nonreligious", so that in professing the contrary, we are implicitly confessing to Gnosticism.)
In the file at this Website entitled "What Is Scimath?", I state my conception of "SCIENCE AS A COLLECTION OF ANSATZES OF HOMOLOGIES WITH FIGURE&GROUND CORRECTIONS". You may learn more about this notion in that file. The point relevant to the present discussion is that I do not regard SCIENCE as in competition with RELIGION.In the file on Darwin, I note that "creationists" are, at least implicitly, hypocritical in rejecting evolutionary theory, while enjoying the bounties of its strategies. (The Amish