I was reading today the article entitled: Getting the Religious Right Wrong, by W. James Antle III, in which he reports that the Anti-Defamation League warns that groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are engaged in a �pervasive and intensive assault� aimed at �Christianizing America", and I just had to laugh.
You have to wonder about people who make these types of statements. Having studied psychology, and then seeing it from the other side of the fence during six months of intense therapy, I tend to look at everything through its' lens.
While considering this 'Christianizing America' accusation, I was reminded that the definition of Egocentric (as may be found at http://allpsych.com/dictionary/) is: "The thinking in the preoperational stage of cognitive development where children believe everyone sees the world from the same perspective as he or she does".
To suggest that America is being Christianized, is to assert that America is not a Christian country. That a person can think from this perspective, means either they are completely ignorant and stupid, or that they are so egocentric as to be unaware of the world around them.
Now of course, the statements attributed to this League, are made in print, so we cannot know how the speech was delivered from an 'emotional' perspective, but generally such people are not calm, quiet philosophisers reasoning from the intellect. They tend to be somewhat aggressive and completely unresponsive to rational objections. Their Emotional Intelligence (The awareness of and ability to manage one's emotions in a healthy and productive manner) is somewhat limited.
It does not matter upon which side of the 'church/state' divide you stand, if you cannot 'reason and debate' an issue without indulging in projection, it cannot be said that you are in full control of your senses. [Projection is a defense mechanism whereby we transfer or project our feelings about one person onto another, and a defense mechanism is a Psychological force which prevents undesirable or inappropriate impulses from entering consciousness, in this case, accepting any truth in the opposing argument see: www.answers.com/topic/psychological-projection].
Of course just because a person heatedly argues an issue does not mean that they are suffering from some psychological crisis. Passionate people often appear irrational, when in fact they are really quite rational. Others who debate contentious issues, are extrinsically motivated. (Extrinsic Motivation: The desire or push to perform a certain behavior based on the potential external rewards that may be received as a result).
One has to wonder at how the 'Leagues' mind works. Do they passionately believe in a cause, or are they projecting onto 'religion and believers' some past anger related to a religious organisation or person. Perhaps they are motived in what they do, not by Passion or intellect, but by desire for reward of some kind. [Think about Christian anti-abortionists who attack and/or kill abortion doctors. What did they see as their reward?]
Another possible reason why some people might get irrationally heated about an issue, is that most people are just dumb sheep. Having worked on a Sheep and Cattle station many years ago, I know first hand how dumb sheep are. They will literally lay down and die because they are too dumb to do anything else. Recently I read a report from somewhere, where a couple of hundred sheep died, when they all followed the leader over a cliff. The only reason they all did not die was that the first couple of hundred cushioned the fall for the rest.
People 'sheep', are the ones who can be aroused by appealing to their emotions to 'believe' in a cause. Nowhere is this more evident than in religious fundamentalism, and is undoubtedly one of the issues that offends and upsets the 'anti-religionists'. The problem however, is that in their determination to 'set the people free', they resort to exactly the same tactics. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.
To paraphrase a statement made on the Mesora.org website: Merely accepting what authority figures say without striving to understand with our minds is the furthest thing from the truth. An honest approach is one which can only be reached by clear, rational arguments. [Full quote appears on homepage at KingsCalendar.com]
People, organisations and philosophies constantly require us to put our faith in them, and this is just as applicable to the 'anti-christian' activist groups as it is to any religious group. But again to paraphrase from another article at Mesora.Org. - to say 'I believe" is meaningless. Maturity requires one to operate on a basis of reason. Living life on faith alone is desirable as it asks little of its adherents. It is an inferior lifestyle rooted in the emotions, not the intellect. [Issue No. 187 of "JEWISH TIMES - The weekly Journal on Jewish Thought" entitled: Faith vs Proof: the lemming, by Nissim Ben-Chaim - Vol V : No 5 : Nov 25 2005.
We often mistake passion and emotion for reason, and what we often think is 'logic' is nothing more than our particular 'worldview'.
Those who want to fight against 'religion in Society'; the ones who claim that they are fighting for 'personal freedoms', are in fact doing just what the Communists do. They 'oppress' religion in the name of the 'people', to protect them from being 'manipulated' by religious authority figures.
In reality of course, the exact opposite is true. Oppressing and suppressing religion, is to deny the right of people to believe and associate with like minded people, (and eventually as we have seen in Communist China, this practice fails!).
In it's place, [for sociological reasons too complicated to discuss], the 'liberationists' must offer a different system of 'belief', and as we have seen in Communists countries, once the government begins to use power to 'control' what people think and believe, the gate is pushed wide open for true abuse of civil liberties and freedoms.
Up until the 'anti-religionists' began their campaigns to fight against religion and its' symbols, the religious world just went on about it's business, and anyone and everyone had the right to believe as they would.
Now that the anti-religionists have encountered opposition to their 'will', they must 'project' onto the religionists, their own inner machinations, ie: to control what people think, and to force a specific 'belief system' onto the whole of society.
In relation to attacks by the 'gay' lobby on Michael Heath, it is interesting to note that the anti-religionists claim that it is 'religion' which is homophobic and discriminatory toward homosexuals. Yet China, which rejected religion of any kind, has a record of discriminating against, prosecuting, imprisoning, beating and torturing homosexuals.
Do groups of like mind with Michael Heath propose such treatment of Homosexuals? No! They merely object to it because of their particular 'worldview'. Will de-christianising America make life wonderful for gay people? Will it bring utopia to the various activist groups and their agendas?
Well, if Government begins to dictate to people what they can and cannot believe; can and cannot see in public places; what they can and can not say in public [political correctness], then that Government is well on the way to becoming a Communist Government. If that day arrives, the activist groups can kiss their collective fannies goodbye!
R.P.Bendedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
R.P.BenDedek is the pseudonym of the Author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' (www.kingscalendar.com), and is a guest columnist at Magic City Morning Star News. An Australian, he currently teaches Conversational English in China.
King's Calendar Social Commentaries
The King's Calendar' is a synchronous chronological presentation of the history of Ancient Israel, as principally recorded in the Biblical books of Kings and Chronicles, and sets forth Apologetics for and the results of R.P.BenDedek's discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Books of the Bible, Josephus and the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
