I am a person of faith. I am a Christian, at least in so far as I self-identify as a "Christ follower". I believe there is a God; i.e. a single supreme being who created the multi-verse in which I presently exist as a physical human being.
As a citizen of the United States of America in good standing, this is my inalienable right. Isn't it? This is absolutely not a distinction in search of a difference.
Sometimes, it is only when a right is abandoned, surrendered or even taken away that its value becomes both clearly apparent and significant. Before assailing my proposition, first consider it. (I do actually know and understand the First Amendment and it's "establishment" clause.)
What I wish to highlight here is the sometimes tangential argument which follows from it; perhaps wrongly, but perhaps not. Focus is required here. I invite you to settle in, pour a cup and have a dialogue.
You are not required to agree with my beliefs (many "Christians" don't, in fact). You are not somehow required to ascribe to them, or recognize them. You do have the right to disagree with my beliefs; to challenge them (if you are sufficiently able). You do not, however have the right to disrespect me or my beliefs because I have them, to cast aspersions upon either my beliefs or myself simply because I, and they exist. To do so is a violation of my right to freedom of (and from) religion. I may not require you to agree to, or with my beliefs, nor may you require me to disavow them, turn away from them, deny them, or either publicly or privately refuse to express them in the ways I choose. My expressions of my beliefs, likewise, cannot either purposely or incidentally, by design or accident, bring you harm (given the usual definitions of "harm").
Those things which I require of, or expect from you I must also extend to you. This is true because this is a right, an inalienable right which we, as citizens of the United States of America share; given to us by a piece of paper which we accepted long ago as the foundation stone of our national identity.
There is no room in this diary for debate about whether or not we are a Christian nation; that is neither its purpose nor its scope. There is no place in this diary for argument regarding the IDF, or a Two-State solution. These things are off the table here.
Any attempts to do so will simply display before the world your misunderstanding of this diary, and (dare I say it) your ignorance--if I present myself well and accurately. If I do not, have at it. (Now, how's THAT for a preamble, citizen?)
Notice, please, the flow here. A notion, prescribed by others, extending to me as a member of the group the notion was intended to serve and/or protect. From the document to me. It has never, does not now, nor will it ever flow the other way. It just wouldn't make sense. And, to a very large degree, that is the fundamental thesis of this diary, so it is important to understand. Not even arguing that, this diary addresses a completely different point.
What if, by some particular and specific machination (say legislation, for instance), that were to change? Not, mind you, that the flow were to change, but rather the fundamental right itself were to change? Impossible to imagine, you say?
In Israel, in this past week, it did. Whether or not you support, defend, or oppose Israel is not specifically the topic, or the point here. But that there was a fundamental change in the definition of Israel, by Israel as a nation state IS the point. I believe it matters-- a very great deal. Your mileage may vary (YMMV).
If this is a subject of interest to you, I hope you will follow me below the
squiggledoodlethingey fold, and let me tell you why.