Truth be told

Honestly, by going back to writing a blog entry today, I think I might just be stalling. I’m in a quandary over the next radio show I’m producing. (A program you can listen to, by the way, by clicking on one of the buttons back on the homepage of this site.) Anyway, in retrospect, the show I’ve already completed 90% of just ain’t all that great. It’s supposed to be about Moses, a guy who had a whole lot written about him in the Bible…admitedly having served, in large part, as his own scribe. Trying to accomplish an overview of him, as pertains to his faith in God, in a manner reminiscent of all previous “@ the Rock Shop” programs has presented a troublesome challenge. And I do have my standards…don’t you know?

I’m either going to have to scrap what I’ve already done and start over or compromise a few of my exceedingly high standards and finish off a sub-par program just because that sure would be a whole lot easier and move on. Hence, I’m in a holding pattern presently, and thought I'd provide myself with another form of distraction.

What I did think worth drawing attention to though, was the excessive amount of faith in God (Christian faith in particular) that was a planned part of the inauguration ceremonies of U.S. President Barak Obama yesterday.

Here’s a brief rundown of what transpired; The Obama’s continued the long standing tradition of attending St. John’s Episcopal Church ahead of the inauguration. Public prayers to God were offered by Christian pastor’s Rick Warren and Rev. Joseph Lowerey, the oath was taken with Barak Obama's right hand on a Bible…and, not surprisingly perhaps, the new President even made some spiritually charged comments during his first speech as leader of this free nation. In addition, you also had a handful of protesters crying angrily in outrage about this. I wonder, was their irritation over God getting more attention than they were?

I realize that many of the events that comprise the inauguration of any U.S. President have come from a long line of traditions. George Washington started several of them, particularly placing a hand on the Bible as he took the oath of office. And even at that first inauguration, April 30, 1789 on Wall Street in New York City…(ain’t that interesting?) there were those shouting their opposition to God’s place in the proceedings. The controversial issues about all that praying and church going at a “swearing-in, oath taking” of a president essentially are believed to derive from an oft misinterpreted portion of the U.S. Constitution that is erroneously dubbed “separation of church and state.” Well, I for one think the whole pretense is just silly.

Let’s begin with what the U.S. Constitution actually says on that “separation of church and state” topic. Here are the actual words written in the document that, incidentally, had to be ratified by Congress before George Washington could even be sworn in as president: “Congress shall make no LAW (emphasis mine) respecting an establishment of religion or PROHIBITING (me again) the free exercise thereof…” If you were to go looking back through history's annals to find the first instance of this “separation of church and state” notion you won’t find it entering the public mindset until after 1802 and then it’s credited to President #3 Thomas Jefferson…a guy who, as it turns out, was inclined to “cut and paste” together his own interpretation of the Bible, known as the Jefferson Bible.

Not to get too far distracted, the point is that hugely vast portions of the people who comprise the populace of the United States of America honestly believe there is a God and put their faith and trust in Him. The predominant religious faith in the U.S. is far and away Christianity. So, when you break it down to those few who are outraged by all this “God-talk” during an inauguration…it turns out they happen to be one of the most miniscule of all the minorities there are…atheists.

Granted it’s pert near impossible to get an accurate count of the number of atheists in the world. Most of that boils down to how you go about defining an "atheist." It thereby becomes challenging to draw boundaries between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, there are probably a lot of these "atheists" who won’t own up to it, or might not even know they are one. Nevertheless, many studies indicate that the non-religious of the whole world make up about 12-15% of the population, with authentic atheists compromising only about one quarter of these. Of course to hear all their blathering banter you’d easily tend to think there are a whole lot more of them.

Now, as a former adherent of atheism, I know from whence I speak. There’s something charming about being different. (I mean really different.) Atheism certainly provides a stimulating form of philosophical challenge. And, admit it, who doesn’t love the entertainment factor of getting another person all upset and flustered by trying to defend their faith in God against someone who claims to have none.

But the truly troubling issue with the outspoken atheist keeps coming back to a question, why are you so adamantly opposed to the very mention of something you don’t believe in anyway? Me thinks thou certainly dost protest far too much. Prior to my coming to believe the overwhelming evidence for a creator God, I'd been in your shoes. But could someone, anyone, please enlighten me - I can't for the life of me fathom what a radical atheists palavering point is? Having now extensively examined both sides of the subject, I contend there are a whole bunch of flaws in the atheism viewpoint anyway. Therefore, enquiring minds want to know...have you ever made an honest and serious examination into why so many other people on this planet don't embrace your way of thinking? Something of significant value seems to resonate in the adage, can so many people be so wrong about something? As I've been willing to consider you're alternative, I wonder why you aren't willing to explore the option that there might actually be something to this belief in God thing?

As usual, I’m open to reading any and all opposing viewpoints that you’d care to submit. And I don't even have any qualms about posting your comments either. (The only editing criterion I've ever implemented is not to post the ones that are unduly vulgar...or those I get from my mother-in-law...not always one in the same.) Drat, now I'm once more faced with all intended stalling tactics having been exhausted, so it looks as if I’m going to have to rectify that other issue regarding what to do about my next installment of “@ the Rock Shop.” Curses…I guess starting over seems like the best way to go, so toodles, I’ve got some work to do. But in the meantime, I double-dog-dare you to give a listen to my current offering on Joseph of the Old Testament.

Until next time, I remain ever yours regardlessly,

the old-man at the mike-ro-phone – sharing voices inside my head