Grill A Christian (Feb 2025 contest)

2025_February_Grill A Christian_LightinMind_contest
**************************************************************

FEBRUARY PROMPT

By love or force? Christian nationalism today



Can you force people to behave like Christians?
Can you force someone or indeed a culture to be good?
Christian nationalism is arguably a force behind Trump's recent election victory.
It is a background factor in Putin's Russia
and a driving force in African countries like Uganda.
If Christians are in charge to what extent should they enforce their theology and ethics?
What is the value of a union or separation of church and state?
Which is better - Christian control, guided freedom,
freedom of religion or the moral relativism of Western Europe?

********************************************************

I am an avowed ignostic atheist. It is not so easy to define what that means, but let us say that I find the whole concept of ‘following’ some deity or religion to be an irrelevancy. Not the idea of a god, just the need to have said god control my thoughts, my actions, and my morality. I feel quite confident that I possess the competency to make these kinds of decisions all on my own. If not, then am I capable of choosing a legitimate god or religion? I really don’t think so.

I usually don’t have a word limit in my musings, so lets get right down to it. One of the most important aspects of life, in my own humble opinion, is the concept of coercion. The first sentence of the prompt asks the question ‘can you force people to behave like Christians?’ Interesting beginning.

People are going to act in such a manner that reflects what they believe to be true. Not what they want you to think, but what they actually think. If they are legitimately ‘good’ people, then their actions will reflect that. If not, then what we see is unfortunate, and probably not desirable. If force is involved, I am not sure what we are to expect, or even if the ‘person’, whatever they do, is justified or responsible for their actions. Not a good start.

I have a somewhat jaded and ‘out-of-the-box’ perspective on god and religion. My upbringing was Christian, my mother was fairly devout, father not so much, but he went to church just like the rest of the family. My mothers brother became a Catholic priest, as well as her first born son. I was the second son, and the last of four children. I studied to be an altar boy, but was never destined to be a priest, and that was obvious early on. I have read the Bible, as well as parts of the Torah, the Quran, and bits and pieces of any number of other disciplines and religions. They all have something to say, and that’s a ‘good’ thing. But, unfortunately, they lose legitimacy when I investigate the inner workings of the human element that ‘represents’ or ‘manages’ the day to day activities of the religious paradigm.

I was not meant to be either a follower or a leader. Just an individual. When people ask me my religion, I am not an atheist that immediately demeans or criticizes those who follow a religion. In fact, I am quite sympathetic in their quest for knowledge and enlightenment. At least, I hope that is what they are doing. For myself, from a very early age I was more interested in the fundamentals that the religion and the god were based upon. It was inevitable, in hindsight, that I would become a philosopher of sorts. My mantra, and my focus, culminating in my current belief system is summarized thusly:

Philosophy without religion ‘IS’
Religion without philosophy ‘IS NOT’

Simple, is it not? A philosophy does not need some random (or specific) god or religion to be legitimate or justifiable in any respect. A religion, or a god for that matter, absolutely needs to have an intrinsic ‘philosophy’, or morality, if you will. Otherwise, I am not sure if it offers any true value or substance in the determination of a life or a destiny of sorts. Philosophy allows the individual to ‘self-determine’ their path forward in life, and it gives confidence and competence in thought and action, or at least it has been that way with me. God and religion, on the other hand, directs action, and even thought, sometimes being benign and of benefit to the individual, at other times being coercive and destructive and manipulative. I find that troubling and unfortunate.

A religion (and by extension, the god it represents) can ‘tell’ you what to do, but without an underlying and legitimate moral philosophy, you never really know the what and why that is important in understanding one’s own actions and purpose. Those who ‘follow’ the dictates of another, even a god, become vulnerable and threatened by any opportunist that comes on the scene, and history shows us this repeatedly, with things like Crusades, and the hoarding of trillions of dollars of valuable artifacts in the belly of the Vatican, never to be seen by anything more than a handful of human beings, and the resources never spent to help even a single person in need. I find that more than a little bit disturbing. It is one of the primary reasons that I set off, on my own, to find what truth might be out there in reality. I found some, but more questions than answers. But that is what philosophy does. It does not particularly answer questions, but it makes you think, and create more questions, which are then the objective of further searching, discovering, and of course, more thought.

Christian nationalism is something of a ‘red-herring’. Yes, many people that voted for Trump are of a certain religious persuasion, but they have to vote for someone, do they not? What are the alternatives? There is some truth in their interpretation of these ‘others’ that don’t believe in their own personal ‘flavour’ of beliefs. Many of those others don’t seem to know the difference between right and wrong. But hubris and condescension and, dare I say, ‘hatred’, are not the answer. I may not believe in god, but I believe in the goodness of humanity, and that most people want the same things. Someone to love, a family, a roof over their head, perhaps some form of security, and some food in their belly. In that, we are in agreement. The hatred stuff, not so much. I am reminded of a friend of mine, linus, from the peanuts comic strip, who is quoted as saying:

“I love mankind . . . .
. . . . its people I can’t stand"

Trump is not the problem. He may be a symptom, but he is not the anti-christ, whatever that is, and will not destroy the country or the world. He already had four years to do that, if it was his intent. Didn’t happen, won’t happen now.

As for the Christians being in charge, I am not sure that is the way to go, especially when you put it in the context of ‘enforcing’ their theology and ethics. Not that they do not have some valid points, or reasonable and logical perspectives. It is just how to figure out which ones are legitimate and desirable, and which ones are not. The concept of ‘coercion’ works its way back into the conversation, as it always does. There can be no resolution unless someone, usually with the most power and influence, is able to ‘force’ those around them to accept and acquiesce to ‘reason’, even if the concept is perverted and more a rationalization than a truth.

Whatever happened to this thing called ‘freedom’? Is the real objective not to create a social environment where ‘everyone’, regardless of the litany of attributes, from age and sex (or sexual orientation), to religion and culture, are allowed to self-determine their own moral and philosophical path, creating a valid personal character and integrity, based on solid ethical behaviours? Why does anyone have to capitulate and acquiesce to the demands of anyone else, with the only exception being for completely unacceptable behaviour?

Our political system is woefully inadequate, and yet, I see nothing from the land of collectivism, or from any particular religion either (and there are hundreds of them, if not thousands) that can compete with what exists today, in America, with a significant degree of freedom and rights and benefits. Perfect? Not by a long shot, and yet, there exists an optimism that more can be achieved if the right people have the power, not to oppress and coerce, but to manage and suggest a more appropriate paradigm moving forward.

The religious segment of our societies, worldwide, deserve to be a part of that political determination, as much as any of the other special interest groups that seem to exist around every corner. When we vote, it is supposed to be without malice or condemnation from any other individual. We all get to vote (or not vote at all), with the caveat being that, in the end, a decision is made, and we make an attempt to decide if we did so with intelligence and reason, or we need to go back to the drawing board. Everyone wants ‘their’ way or the highway, but that is not really the intent of the system. It is supposed to be ‘by’ the people, ‘of’ the people, and especially, ‘for’ the people. Last I looked, we are ‘all’ the people.

Unions are coercive in nature, and no different than any other special interest group. They deserve no special treatment or advantage, no matter what they may believe or think. If anything, we need to control their coercive tendencies, not to mention their violent tendencies.
As for the separation of church and state, this is one of the most perverted and misunderstood concepts in our Constitution. Anyone that has read the Federalist Papers knows that it was not meant to exclude religion from the American experience, but to ‘prevent’ the government itself from ‘imposing’ (there is that coercion again) a specific and involuntary religion on the membership of society itself, which is what happened with the Church of England, and our Forefathers were seeking to reject and prevent this from happening in the Americas. Every citizen ‘had’ to join the Church and pay a tithe. Not to mention that the ‘Church’ was protestant and had great conflicts with the Catholic Church itself, and our freedom of religion in America was meant, and designed, to prevent something similar from happening in the Colonies.
Not just Christians, but all religions deserve the support, both materially and philosophically, from our government, and monies for school and various activities, as long as they are available to any other similar groups, are every bit as legitimate as aid and support given to the multitude of special-interest groups that compete for whatever dollars are available. I don’t see how this is arguable. The facts are available for anyone who wishes to seek the history of this great country.

Which is better? Christian control, ‘guided’ freedom, freedom of religion or the moral relativism of Western Europe? Besides some actual form of freedom of religion (freedom of thought might be a more appropriate terminology), none of the above.

No one needs to ‘control’ (coerce) anyone else. If anything, they should have the right to convince the rest of us, persuade us to their perspective and objectives. Is that not what our entire political system is supposed to do? I believe in conversation, which extends to contemplation, and results in comprehension and resolution. Nothing else is necessary. Force is certainly not in my own paradigm.
As for the moral relativism of Western Europe, it is nothing more than a horrible rationalization of an inability to create and develop a personal moral philosophy that will give valuable and rational alternatives to some nihilistic mindless rhetoric where nothing holds value and no one is right, there is no right and wrong, and we can all do whatever we please, for the simple reason that we want to.

By love or force? I think you know my answer. Neither. Love is a euphemism for coercion, as is force itself. We need reason and logic, empathy and understanding. We need to ‘feel’ things, but more so we need to think, deeply and with focus. We need to do the right thing.




Total word count: 2061 words
February prompt: 110 words
My Submission: 1951 words