You're meant to be clever enough to understand that this is clever.
I always think, 'Abyssus abussum invocat,' and display a Tolkien-like wariness about even using the name. Perhaps that means I'm not clever enough. I do appreciate the attempts to defend a Constitutional principle; I don't, especially, appreciate the way in which actual religious belief is viewed as dispensable. There are many things I would do to tolerate and make room for sincere religious feeling that I wouldn't do at all for someone who's just trying to make a political point. The toleration of sincere religious belief is humane, in the strictest sense of the word; the other applies a kind of acid to the humane principle.
3 comments:
Methinks the key phrase is "applies a kind of acid".
Try publicizing the First Church of MOLOCH.
Promote that god's (or demon pretending to be a god) solemn promise that by killing, dismembering and burning the bodies of infants, one may achieve health and prosperity during life on Earth.
Demand equal time at city council and county commissioners' court meeting to offer an opening, intercessory, prayer that sufficient young fertile women will burn their infants to secure Moloch's favor upon the governments' good works; warning that insufficient sacrifice will instead earn Moloch's displeasure, and bring climate change, pestilence and famine.
Argue that the believers in and practitioners of baby-killing should, and must, come out of the shadows. Erect monuments to Moloch outside his (now disguised) temples. Assemble congregations to sing his psalms of destruction. It's not just free exercise of faith, and freedom to assemble; it's free speech.
See how far you get. Find out, even, if the press would grant Moloch equal time with Satan, who is, after all, as the story of Job tells, one of the angels and servants of a more-widely-recognized God.
Let me know.
I do appreciate the attempts to defend a Constitutional principle..
My argument would be that they are not really upholding a Constitutional principle. The Amendment says that Religion shall not be established, not that Religion should never be recognized. The free exercise of Religion is also guaranteed, and efforts to drive it from the public sphere are in direct conflict with protecting it's free exercise.
Post a Comment