Apologies for the delay.
I came home from work, saw and read most of the posts and went, "what have I stepped into this time?" LMAO.
Took a nap, ate, then hesitated in trepidation to the can of worms I had opened. I am somewhat prepared in rebutting/clarifying my position.
First, I am not a Christian. I am, however, a Christian supporter, or ally if you prefer.
At no point has the thought entered that everyone falls into this category. There can be, and likely is, rational disagreement with the religious
viewpoint in general.
Some have demanded 'proof' of my assertion. For myself, I require no proof as that implies convincing others of my view. I require no validation from
others. Empirical evidence is sufficient for my certainty level to withstand criticism.
I will, however, modify my views when presented with evidence or logical argument that resonates sufficiently to change my views....as most of us also
Having said that, prima facie evidence lies in a multitude of posts in response to this thread. As I am too quick to temper, I have had several
'warnings' about my responses. Therefore, ATS decorum prevents me in labelling specific posts as a 'phobia' lest I offend. Apparently, negative
comments must be buffered with 'generalities' and implied, indirect comments.
So I ask you posters that may have only posted in response to the concept to look again at the posts. You decide if which if any can be or 'flirt'
with a theophobia.
I see numerous examples.
Likely many who have been caught in this mentality will not be able to see it....at first.
I'd like to point out that my opening example of the separation of church and state was and is valid. One poster has stated that the Constitution
should have been applied in the day the same as today.
I rebut why? There was no movement toward a religious gov't. The mentality was live and let live. I'm sure there was both religious and non-religious
members amongst those elite individuals who fathered the Constitution.
In fact, to even achieve an accord amongst the thirteen colonies, many issues were avoided in totality. Slavery is the perfect example of that. To
have addressed divisive issues would have killed the accord before it even started never mind allowing it survive any amount of time.
We are now approaching a similar divisive state to the point where the very nation is threatened by this and other issues.
One poster suggested the 'fear' wasn't irrational citing acts committed currently by radical Islamists, among others.
If one disagrees with a 'concept' or an idea, one doesn't fear it, one discards it, rebuts it, counters it in an intellectual fashion. One doesn't
'fear' a concept, rationally. It is an irrational statement.
The acts of individuals "in the name of Religion" are still acts of individuals. Religions, in and of themselves, are incapable of "acts". They are
acts of anything but religious people. Be they in a specific religion or not.
A truly religious person is not to be feared in any way whatsoever. Does anyone ever felt 'fear' when Mother Teresa's name is mentioned? Of course
not. Some would rebut, "the exception that proves the rule". Perhaps. There are very few that live up to that standard. In or outside organized
Have the most horrific acts been committed in the name of religion? Hell, yes! No more so than in the name of any ism you can name.
The standards and ideals set by religion are very high and few attain them. All end up subverted in some fashion one way or another, at least for a
period of time. Equally true of any group created by mankind, ever.
Some have coined a new phrase, Christophobia. Perhaps valid. Yet it also could be all religion with Christianity being politically correct to be
attacked or marginalized and when it come to Islam, it falls under the politically incorrect category to marginalize. Social media and agenda can be
Again I cite gov't's aim to supplant a deity with themselves as the sole decision maker on right and wrong, who lives, who dies and when.
I ask you, which is worse?
When I referred to the culture being theophobic I will clarify. Simply put, there is no restraint on pointing out the flaws of religion or a
percentile of it's members with many being valid. What is never pointed out is the fact that the same acts occur outside religion or so-called
religious people. Be it nationalism, socialism, capitalism, communism, greed, insanity, power....shall I go on?
I suspect many of you get my point.
There is a theophobia. This culture manifests it, even indoctrinates it via social media.
Enough for tonight. The Coho are running up here in Washington and I intend catching a couple in the morning. I almost never happens,
though....perhaps I should call on divine intervention......