I read a post on AtheistNexus.org containing an external article about Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia who said that atheists will go to "hell", even if they don't believe in it. What nice man. Making threats of eternal damnation against people who don't share his religious beliefs. That isn't surprising, of course. A Jehovah's Witness or a Seventh-day Adventist wouldn't be much better , when they tell you that you are going to be annihilated by Yahweh's angelic army and that you will go into a state of non-existence for being an " unrepentant sinner" and miss out on eternal life. Resorting to threats of hellfire and annihilation is not a good way to win people's hearts and minds. Being an ex-JW, an ex-Adventist, and ex-Mormon, an ex-Roman Catholic etc., I realize to an even larger degree as to how immature such tactics are, threating people with divine retribution.
They are nothing more than baseless threats to me. Please offer testable evidence of "hell" or that Yahweh's angelic army is going to slaughter most of humanity. Are such people that insecure in their beliefs that you have to resort to threats? Not to sound self-righteous, but back when I was involved with organized religion, I never resorted to using such threats. I didn't consider it my place to judge the eternal fate of another person. I recall a comment included in the discussions by ex-Jehovah's Witnesses that I recently posted. This ex-JW who is still a Christian said something that seemed like that she is acting righteous and not sympathizing with the world over it's flaws. If anything, that sounds self-righteous to me. She isn't happy about the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and their methods of keeping their members under control, but apparently it seems that she still holds to the same notion of moral superiority that the JW's do. I understand that she may still be hurting over her experiences, but I still think that she holds to views that seem very misguided to me. It's like saying, "My crap, smells better than their crap". Well, feces still have an awful stench, no matter whose behind they came out of, if you ask me. I am an atheist, I sympathize with world over its flaws, but I don't think that I am morally superior to anyone else.
I think that people or groups who believe that they are morally superior to their fellow human beings can be very dangerous. Neither the Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentecostals or Southern Baptists own the concept of morality and they never have. Christianity has no special hold on morality any more than Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Neo-Paganism, Buddhism, LaVeyan Satanism, agnosticism or atheism. There moral and immoral people of every background. Do some people hold to concepts of morality that are better than others? Sure. However, moral behavior should not be assumed as existing amongst only one group of people. It should not be assumed that people who don't share your beliefs are entirely incapable of behaving morally and ethically. To do such things, I think, is dangerous and has very serious consequences.
I think that Antonin Scalia, a Roman Catholic, does a very poor job at interpreting the Constitution which is the supreme law in this country. I don't agree with politicians trying to use their religious beliefs to influence secular laws which are supposed to be used to help benefit everyone, whether they are religious, hold some belief in a deity, an afterlife or other supernatural concepts who do not affiliate themselves with any religion or entirely non-religious. I don't want the Roman Catholic Church or the LDS Church trying to interfere with my life or in the lives of people that I care about. Many southern states have written in their state constitutions that atheists are not allowed to hold public office, despite the Constitution containing a law about not having to undergo a religious test to belong to any governmental office. A few Supreme Court justices are very religious Roman Catholics.
I don't care if a politician is a Roman Catholic, a Mormon, a Seventh-day Adventist, an Evangelical, a Jew , a Muslim or even a Scientologist, but when you start insisting that people have to abide your religious views which you are trying to embed into our laws, then I'm going to have a very big problem with you. If Antonin Scalia, wants to follow the Pope's authority and live his life under Roman Catholic restrictions, then he can go live in Vatican City. Neither the Pope nor the Roman Catholic Church have any authority over secular law in American. We are not a theocracy. I am not going to live by life according to the RCC's rules. By the way, I don't find Pope Francis to be all that wonderful, especially due to his recent prejudiced remarks about transgendered persons having "perverted" Yahweh's "creation" by just existing. Pope Francis may have pretended to be LGBT-friendly in order to get more progressive people like him, but now he has shown his true colors.
I do not live by life by any religious rules. I don't live my life by Jehovah's Witness or Mormon rules anymore and I don't plan to ever again because I no can no longer agree with their way of life anymore which I believe is very misguided, despite whatever good intentions they might have. Muslim rules are not something that I want to live by. I pity Muslims who live in countries that are not ruled by Islamic extremists who still live under Sharia law. I don't think that it benefits Muslims to live by a separate religious law which is not always fair or just, but I suspect that some Muslim religious leaders could care less if alleged "criminals" are given a fair trial, because obedience to Allah comes first over anything else, regardless of how cruel or inhumane the rules in their religious text may be I am not a scholar of the Quran, the Bible or of religion in general, but I can recognize religiously-based cruelty whenever I see it. Antonin Scalia is no different in this regard if you ask me. What do you think?
What do you think?
Sincerely,
B.W.
No comments:
Post a Comment