Thoughts of a Freethinker

No doubt there were influential people demanding "Christian Nation" when the U.S. was formed. There have been people drumming it up ever since. Now, Trump has a wink-wink day of prayer scheduled. Yet, the largest "denomination" in the U.S. today is "No Religious Affiliation." Christan numbers are falling. Trump's tongue-in-cheek political trick will not make a "Christian Nation" nor will all the other tricksters doing similar mischief. It seems recently there have been posts everyday banging the drum that 250 years ago founders intended a one religion country. This notion is all the more ridiculous when we learn several of those who helped write the documents and later form its government knew precisely how to form a "Christian nation." They knew because they came from colonies that declared an official religion. I read recently some of these founders did not like what they had experienced with a state religion. Overriding this was ...

There are various ways to explain how and why Christianity became so successful. The most common explanation of nonbelievers is the Roman Dictator, Constantine, converted and that's why there is Christianity. Believers, however, say "Paul" traveled around starting churches and the faith spread from that. The "Paul" story was claimed to have happened shortly after the alleged death of Jesus. That is, it started about 50 CE.   Writing and doubts about "Paul" were present in the 1800's when Dutch scholars of that time did not believe a "Paul" wrote any part of the Bible. It is obvious, scholars wrote, the writing was not that of actual letters and it was written between the years 150 CE and 200 CE, not 100+ years earlier. The writing was done, the Dutch concluded, by trained writers who used the letter genre to market the faith. The "letters" were a technique popular around the year 200 CE used by many to persuade the public to ado...

A Catholic writer pointed out something about cultural change and current events I had not noticed. He notes the irony that as Catholic numbers continue their inevitable decline, fewer marriages, baptisms and mass attendance, only one religious figure remains in the news. It is the Pope. There is no Jerry Falwell or prominent Protestant of any stripe quoted or in play. Even as it gets smaller and has less money the Catholic denomination's influence as a moral commentator has gone up.  The link points out the long history of the prominence of Episcopalism. Certainly this high church version of Protestantism has had a long and successful history in politics. Many readers are too young to have known the period when leaders like Eisenhower were Episcopalians. There have been other Protestant celebrities, Bishop John Shelby Spong for example, but so far as I can tell none are in the media regularly today on issues related to governance. From what little I understand about Catholicism, t...

I haven't walked the midway of a fair for several years. Are there still carnival barkers hawking the show behind them in a tent? The barking technique I remember is to create excitement, to exaggerate the performance and sell tickets. I see the term carnival barker is in Wikipedia.  A large swath of Christianity is carnival barkers in front of an imaginary tent bragging about what goes on in the show behind them and selling tickets. Today a technique that is decades old but apparently still a money maker is shouting about Planned Parenthood. "Planned Parenthood is why there are abortions. Send me money and I will shut it down. Planned Parenthood is evil. I fight evil...." This carnival barker is a mega church preacher in California, Mark Driscoll. He never points out Planned Parenthood exists, not because of evil, but because women want abortions and pay for them. It is women he should call evil. But that will not make him any money.    Benny Hinn is a carnival barker wh...

Religion and my field of economics have been competitors since way back. We are competitors because each of us thinks we know best who should decide how money is used. Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. He was a professor but had been a preacher. His message upset those in religion. He said national wealth comes from individual people making decisions in their own best interests. Religion had always taught God was the source of all wealth and the church knew best what money should be used for.  An interesting article appeared today by a nun who lives in a religious order. She explained how those who live in her order "buy" things. Actually, they do not buy things but request personal items from the chief nun who decides if it is really needed or not. It reminded me of Amish women who make videos of Amish life after the have left that community. Husbands hold all the family's money in conservative branches and hand over to the wife only what th...

A surprise report published by the Vatican today confirmed what I have thought for years. I've never seen a certain silent policy discussed explicitly so don't take my word it is official or documented. It is hinted about only.  It starts with a project birthed by the late Pope Francis called "synodality." It is the same process used in all kinds of situations and projects. Before a new building is built architects hold meetings to hear many ideas about what should be included. State, local and federal governments hold hearings and listening sessions. Pope Francis signed off on money for holding listening meetings all over the world. The comments would be summarized and consolidated the submitted periodically in Rome. Francis knew this would result is lots of pressure to accept gays, women and married priests in ways not permitted currently. He knew conflicting positions can and will continue to exist within the denomination. New positions are adopted without the old ...