Chapter Eight; SPORTS AND RELIGION part thirty-one

This section is not the review of how so many sports heroes choose to solicit God's favor on their athletic endeavors but how who or what sports you choose to support has much to do with the same processes that one will select their religion. There has been many books and articles about that phenomenon. What I am referring to is the phenomenon of how who and what sport and/or team a person likes is very similarly wired as that in which we pick and support our favorite athletics events.

No one would argue with a person from Tyngsboro, Massachusetts that they are fans of the Patriots, Celtics, Bruins or Red Sox. However, if you were seen around town wearing a Yankees' jersey you might have a mild to serious confrontation. This is plainly understood as being from Massachusetts and the New England area that your going to support the team that represents your area locally.

But how reasonable is something like this to believe in? If one was to look at the rosters of most of the players of the teams you would find that most of them are not from your local area or attended college in that region. So really the support from the team is not so much the players themselves but from the employer that is able to hire them to work for your local team.

Because of this, it is easy to see that adherence to a sports team is largely due to where a person is born or raised or has some other intrinsic or intangible connection to the team. These connections can be anything from meeting a person when they were in high school or college or knowing someone in their family or being from the same state or town as the athlete. The possible reasons for liking a team or player is about is endless as there are fans of sports.

Sports fans are indeed fanatical and have strong views and opinions of what they think about their team and the teams that play them. We have seen on television and in person fans dressed to expressed their devotion to the team. Though these fans are fanatical, it would not be reasonable for a fan to say their team won even if the team had been clearly beaten. To this, alas, there are exceptions. But for the most part the fanatical adherence to the team is in spite of “win or lose” not because of it. Just ask any Cubs fan.

So when opposing sports fans come together the idea is not to change the mind of the fan to cheer or support your team but to have that fan's team defeated on the field of competition. If the end of the season each teams fans had converted to the winning teams by the end of most seasons logically there would be only one fan base and the other teams would be without support.

This is very similar to how religion works. For the most part we are “fans” of the religion that is dominate in our region. In The South it may be The Southern Baptist church. In the north it may be Catholic Church, out in Idaho and Utah it might me Mormon. In some states being Lutheran or Methodist may be the most popular selection for most people to be “fans” of the local religion. But unlike sports there are usually no team colors of church heroes like in sports. You do not have 24/7 coverage on TV for particular denominations and churches. Actually there are many of these channels but they are no where as popular as the regular cable sports channels.

But unlike in sports, these religious “teams” do not compete head to head in debate and discussion. In such a competition it would be reasonable to expect people to convert from one faith to another. Unlike with my sports team scenario. This may be why there is a truce in public about discussing levels and ideas of faith and belief of our favorite religious “team”. I can only imagine the Methodists going up against the Mormons in Sunday afternoon competition for souls saved. Winner gets the championship.

Since for the most part people attach an even deeper adherence to issues of faith, it is makes sense that is a person is willing to get into a fight for their sports teams, they would be even more willing to attack a person that is attacking their religious belief.

But when their adherence to a religion is viewed as simple geography or other illogical factors it should be a small step to see that if one was born in another part of the world or a different time the deeply held faith that they feel is so important to their lives becomes nothing than rooting for the “home team”.

I guarantee that if children from India, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany or Zaire were adopted and raised in the United States that the children would be some sort of Christian adherents by the time they are adults.

So what we really have with the view of the World's religions is the same thing as cheering for your countries soccer team in the World Cup.

• “I like Brazil soccer because I am from Brazil.”

• “I like the St. Louis Cardinals because I am from St. Louis.”
• “I am Islamic because I am from Saudi Arabia.”
• “I am Mormon because I am from Idaho.”
• “I am Baptist because my friends are.”
• “I am Jewish because my family is.”
• “I am Pentecostal and I like Joel Osteen and Marlyn Hickey.”
• “I am Hindu because my family is from India.”
• I am a Christian because I have had a Revelation from Jesus.

Each and everyone of these is a simplification of the adherent but there is just a slight departure from what a person believes to how a person acts. Never would a Christian adherent that lives and works in The United States and has a comfortable life, relatively speaking, would think for a moment that they would ever have a different faith if they would born in a different country or to a different belief of their parents. A person believes their view of God would follow them no matter where on Earth they lived. But the truth is that your view on God is based upon your family and your culture mainly.

Does a boy start attending church because he likes what the pastor says or is his real motivation to meet that new pretty girl that just moved to town? Is the woman attending church because she likes the message or because this is a good place to find a potential mate for her and a step-father for her three year old son?

I was recently told by a old friend of mine that I should find a nice Bible preaching church and find a good godly woman there so I would have a nice social place to call a home. It was said as a statement for my good will and to have something more to my life but it also was saying that going to church is a good place to pick up women.

Oddly, Church is one of the few places where asking a woman out is not seen as out of place but an almost religious action because doing it in the presence of fellow adherents means “God is in the relationship”. One soon has an entire support system set up and will be socializing with other couples either married or dating as well. This is one of the reason why one would go to a certain church and support the “home team” to find a mate.

So is being an adherent really anything more than timing and location?

I am a veteran and served in both the Air Force and the Army. When you join the military you are processed as you enter in. Much as how you are checked out in a grocery store. First come, first serve. SO you go through the processing and travel to where you have your basic training at.

One there depending on when the rest of the people in for your training class arrive you get assigned a transition location and then, finally a training class. Now in the Air Force my Training flight was “Flight 465”. This of course had no meaning to me whatsoever. “Flight” is a subunit of how the units are divided In the Air Force. They taught a mnemonic device to remember what these divisions are: How many new airmen will get sore feet? Which relates to Headquarters USAF, Major Commands, Numbered Air Forces, Air Divisions, Wings, Groups, Squadrons, and Flights. So I knew that a flight was pretty far down on the Air Force structure.

During my time in Basic Training we had various competitions with other flights in the barracks. Things from class test scores to inspections and physical fitness scores. We had a name for our particular flight which I have long since forgot but we painted a symbol of our flight in the flight day room.

The point of this is I very well could have been put in Flight 466 or Flight 464 and so on. But we worked hard because we felt that “Flight 465” itself was the best and we were lucky to be a part of it. Not that we were the total component of the flight and it was what we made it.

These are the sorts of random events that religious adherents usually do not even consider when it comes to the religious faith they hold or why they hold it. The most common answer when I ask a religious adherent why they believe this or that boils down to, “My faith” tells me what I believe is right. If you ask them if they think that they would be a “fill in Christian denomination here” if they lived in India or Indonesia? Inevitably they say, "Of course." So the next question I would ask is, "Why do you think that?" They will usually tell me, "Because God has shown me his truth."

I would like to see this put to the test. After all, someone that is willing to die for their faith is willing to die for nothing. There is a long history in every religion of martyrs. In the Christian religion one of the more famous books is Foxe's Book of Martyrs. I would like to rename that book: Foxe's Book of Suicidal Dogma Adherents. Each and everyone of the persons killed and the ones doing the killing in that book killed for nothing at all. Just an idea of their “team” being the best team and if you disagreed, you will die. Now that is what you call the faithful fans.

Coming Next Time:

THE BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD part thirty-two

Chapter Eight; HUMANIST POINT OF VIEW part thirty

But as I have said before, since non-adherents do not have a dogma we really have no need to meet together or organize. But I have a feeling that will change as we fight through the courts to return our nation to the secular nation that it was founded as. People seem to be tiring of the rules and control of dogma and want to be good peaceful people living with one another. Helping out where we can and staying out of the way when we should. In the past few years many voices of the non-believing nation have began to speak up. Many of these have found a new audience in the Internet and podcasts. But also more gatherings are being organized around the country.
While most Christian Americans have no problem with having beer and liquor sales regulated according to the wishes of the dominate fundamental Christian view, they would be, rightly so, up in arms if the laws of Islam (shirea) were to be introduced as laws in America. Today, Muslim cab drivers in New York City are fighting for the right not to carry a person that has been drinking or carrying unopened alcohol with them. This goes in the face of the “drink responsible” programs that have been promoted across this nation for years.
In Sweden recently, young women are brutally beaten and forcible raped by sick cruel Muslim men that think that just because a women on planet earth doesn't dress the way they think she should she has no rights and is fair game to be sexually assaulted. This issue has gone as far in Sweden at to be called a Muslim rape wave.

From the Assyrian International News Agency dated December 15, 2005:

“In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea High Court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.”

The story goes on to relay how the Muslim men feel about how the woman are treated:

“Some Muslim immigrants admit their bias quite openly. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he's not the only one thinking this way. "It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl," says Hamid. "The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries."

When I read something like this, it actually makes me want to return kind for kind retaliation upon these so called men. If these Muslims, living inside these countries, do not wish to see woman dress as she wishes, then they should move to a country that shares their views. Otherwise they should be subjected to the same brutal treatment that has happened to these women. I would have little problem with fathers, mothers, sisters, brother, friends and the victims themselves, inflicting a penalty on these Muslim men that have no respect for women.
While the rape wave issue is religiously based, in the town I live in Oklahoma I was told that on the local public transportation a person cannot be taken to or from a bar or transport a person that has been shopping and has any alcohol with them. This seems to me to be a way to encourage a person to act irresponsibly concerning drinking. After all why should the state have any issue with a person acting responsible? These are state laws and can affect the funding of the local transportation service if they are violated. This is a odd reflection in Oklahoma of what the Muslin New York City cab drivers were asking for. Maybe they should move to Oklahoma. In the past few months I have seen every sort of an attempt to create the State of Oklahoma in to an actual theocracy. Sally Kern is a Representative here and has proposed a Proclamation for Morality. it claims among other things,
“WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery”
Kern seems to think that same sex marriage is the same as child abuse and sex trafficking and who the hell knows what is debauchery to her. As far as illegitimate births, Kern needs to endorse the teaching of sex education that actually prevents girls from getting pregnant and not the failed pipe dream of “just say no to your natural desires”.
In the past few years, stone tablets of the 10 commandments have been placed on county courthouse grounds in Haskell County, Oklahoma. An attempt was made to prohibit Professor Richard Dawkins from speaking as a guest of the University of Oklahoma to an audience. There was passed a law and signed by the Governor that is authorized to place a monument to the 10 commandments on the Statehouse grounds. Then again Representative Sally Kern wants to pass a Proclamation of Morality which also states in part:
“NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE

It is amazing to me that the religious adherents are either so unable or unwilling to control their own nature and behavior according to their self imposed rules of dogma and religion that they feel compelled to pressure lawmakers into passing legislation that reflect their personal dogma. It seems the way these pious and religious people are able to control their own actions is to also control the actions and desires of people who could careless about their beliefs. However, if an other religious group was to force their views on them they would be the first to cry for freedom from religion instead of integrating more of them.
The Native American tribes in many parts of the country have the ability to establish casinos on land that is owned by the tribe. So by default that basically makes gambling legal in Oklahoma as well as many other states where the state itself doesn't allow gambling. I have been to casinos several times. My first time to go to a legal casino in the United States was in 1994 in Las Vegas. I was doing well at blackjack. I won some money the first part of the night and then lost all I won plus the $80 I came to play with. I did know I needed to get back to Kansas and that I needed the money to be able to make the trip so I put that aside plus money need for food and hotels. I was trying to be responsible for my actions. After going up so big that first night them losing it all plus even more I had decided that I am not very good at gambling. So I basically gave it up. [lesson learned Las Vegas, thanks]
I have known people that go almost every week to casinos and will win thousands of dollars and then lose the same amount the following week. I guess if they can afford the fluctuation in their funds that is fine. I cannot, so I prefer not to risk it. But I am still a supporter of casinos.
Because of this I have decided for my own behavior that this activity is not for me. No lawmaker had to regulate my behavior, not dogma had to convert me to its system of belief. Simple experience shows me that gambling is something that I cannot win and will only come up on the short side. I do still indulge on the occasional lottery ticket. [I haven't won yet.]
Because of this, I don't see any reason to have laws that restrict how you can perform otherwise legal activities. It is one thing to have a law in place for drinking and driving. It is quite a whole other thing to have taken the right away from an adult to choose for themselves how to regulate their behavior. I am all for enforcement of laws that keep people that are under the influence of medications and legal substances from driving. [I wonder how many of these local prohibitions on drinking would be in place if the only way they could pass were for the churches to be shut done in the same municipality or counties?]
If a person doesn't want to have liquor, don't drink, if I person doesn't like abortion, don't have one, if a person doesn't like to smoke, then don't. If a person doesn't want caffeine, please have a root beer. I certainly recognize that some people have addictions to such activities and need help but that is a different situation than letting otherwise reasonable and able people from acting in a manor that suits their desires. The religious right some times fail to recall that our nations independence was sought with the idea of rights of liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. As Benjamin Franklin said in Poor Richard's Almanack, (sic) “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” These ideas are driven by the individual not the collective body of America.
When it comes to religious laws in America some of the biggest ones that are de fato in place are the closing of public buildings and businesses on Sunday morning or all day and alcohol and smoking laws. There is not regular mail delivery on Sunday. The reason implied or driven by ordinances for business being close serves the purpose of making sure people have the ability to attend church without being encumbered with it affecting their income.
In many places in America one cannot buy a car on Sunday. I fail to see any religious based logic in that. Certainly there cannot be a reason to have a law to prohibit such “evil” activities.
Having lived and traveled in many states I find the inconsistencies with liquor laws to be quite fascinating and nearly incomprehensibly. These attempts by a moral majority to police a persons behavior are truly the result of an attempt to force religious morality upon a group of people that do not hold their view. The idea that a person is not free to decide for themselves is an insult to an adult. I could write a great deal about the different laws themselves but I will touch on a few of the more bizarre ones.
Keep in mind, any of these business that do these things based upon their personal choice is great. I am talking about either direct governmental or social pressure that are laws of the community.
On alcohol, In Oklahoma you cannot by any wine or liquor at any store on a Sunday. No bar can serve any liquor on a Sunday. No beer greater than 3.2% abw can be sold cold. In Texas, North Carolina and New Mexico a person by themselves cannot purchase a pitcher of beer in a bar. However a person can purchase several beers at one time, in some states. The issue with this morality by legislation has got to be one of the most futile attempts to try to regulate the behavior of citizens. These are all related to the desire to have a moral code forced upon people that may have no desire of belief in that said code.
To better explain this situation would be to turn the tables on those that wish to push their morality on the general population. So here are some fantastical laws governing religion.
• Must be at least 18 or older to attend a church.
• Church only on Sundays.
• No display of public religiosity.
• No open Bibles or religious books in public places.
• Other than in a church or your home, religion cannot be practiced anywhere else.
• You can only attend church at state approved churches.
• It is illegal to preach to or let children under 18 read the Bible or other religious material.
• Any person praying in public will be held at least 8 hours in a non-praying cell.
• Multiple violations will result in loss of your driver's license.
• Pastors on duty must cut a person off from religion if they have had too much.
• Preaching and driving strictly forbidden.

On views concerning liquor and tobacco I tend toward a Libertarian view, this would include the decriminalization of marijuana. I find letting out these person that have had only convictions related to the laws concerning marijuana possession and such to be a good way to ease up the high cost of housing non-violent offenders and have their record expunged of the offensive.
June of 2009 The State of California proposed to legalize marijuana to help ease the budget crisis that they are in. The measure would come up for a vote in 2010. The taxing of cannabis would produce millions of dollars for the state while taking dollars for law enforcement from arresting otherwise law-abiding citizens and putting them in place for more effective uses. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Said that he would welcome debate on the issue but has as of yet to cross the line to promote the wholesale legalization of the naturally fast growing plant. It is predicted that the legal sale and use of marijuana in the State of California could produce up to 1.3 billion dollars of additional revenue for the state budget.
Of course this set the religious right on edge. But even among the more conservative states the frustration of dealing with the overrun of dealing with the cost of enforcing the marijuana laws. The status quo of the religious fundamentalist is falling into the minority of this view and if the voice of the people is to be heard, then the complete legalization of marijuana is just a matter of time. Oddly enough, the people that have or had used marijuana in the past sound quite reasonable when talking about the issue and the ones that are opposed to the legalization of pot are the ones that seem “high” when you hear what they say.
I am thankful to President Barack Obama for deciding not to prosecute persons that are in line with state laws concerning medical marijuana use. It will be even better when the Federal Government decides not to pursue this issue whatsoever. While I disagree with motorcycle helmet laws and seat buckle laws I would be hard pressed to show a connect for these libertarian issue to be related to religion.
It is still odd that the pace of legalization is taking such a long time. It would be hard to imagine how different the country would be if Prohibition was still in place after 72 years, Ending in 1991 instead of 1933.
I recently read a comment on a forum about the legalization of marijuana. The poster wrote a comment to the effect as this, “Do you think the drug dealers are going to just turn over their plants and become law abiding citizens? Of course not.”
This person is in need of a history lesson. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed the law to allow beer to be produced it wasn't the illegal companies that benefited but the legal ones. But it did stop the resources of law enforcement from having to deal with all the massive law enforcement efforts to prohibit the use of alcohol. Those that were the gangsters went into other forms of crime to deal in, such as marijuana and cocaine. The legitimate businesses were the ones that benefited from the repeal and the government got the much needed tax revenue of the legal products and a break on the overwhelming pressure that law enforcement was dealing with to keep alcohol out of the country.


Coming Next Time;

SPORTS AND RELIGION part thirty-one

Chapter Eight; WHAT ABOUT ALL THE GOOD THEY DO? part twenty-nine

It is fair to recognize the good that the religious adherents do again. After all, my forefathers came to this country to experience and escape religious persecution of Europe. Religious America has allowed many sorts of views of religion to live in a relatively peaceful manor. The Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Protestants, Lutheran, Anglicans, Jewish, Friends and many others religions were here in the beginning and due to the pluralistic society the Founding Fathers insisted that not one religion over an other be supported or preferred. This lead to the drafting and ratification of Article I of the Bill of Rights. This also gave the different religions a peaceful co-existence.


If the religious adherents in American wanted to say that The United States was founded by a religious people I would agree with them. But I hear over and over again that America was founded as a religious nation and that is just plain wrong. When the adherents hear this they tend to think that what is being put forth to there idea is that the Founding Fathers were not religious at all. This is not now or ever has been the case by any non-adherent that I have talked to. As an atheist I am more than willing to recognize that many of our Founding Fathers were involved in religion in various degrees. But to say that any of this was to lead to the country being founded as a Christian nation is to set up a false causation. It is more accurate that the nation was founded by religious pluralists and they wanted the freedom to be what their conscience demanded of them concerning faith issues. Not a nation requiring a religious test for public office or trust or to establish or prohibit the right to practice any form of belief even if that belief is not belief at all. Freedom of religion is a right secured in the Bill of Rights for the individual and it is not a place for the secular government to be involved in.


Each denomination was left up to their own devises to recruit adherents. So they began developing organizations to help with community needs such as feeding the poor, disseminating news to the congregation, starting hospitals and schools, caring for the cemeteries, and other community services. Ultimately the idea was to grow the flock. However one denomination had the strange idea that it's follower shouldn't marry or have children. This odd group is called the Shakers. Needless to say they are almost all gone if not gone already.


So there have been many secular positive results of religion in the community. It is part of the discipleship idea of Christianity. It would be hard to find a hospital in the first 150 years of the country that was not somehow associated with a denomination. Plus out on the American prairie, and the west of the United States the Catholic Church was the first to make schools in many small communities that otherwise couldn't afford them. Even Today many secular hospitals started out as missions of a religious organization.


The price a community pays for these positive examples of the good religion does can be high. Let's look at a few.


• Feeding the poor


Sounds like a real stand up idea. Even Jesus liked that one. But what is the price? Well for the most part these people are forced to endure the additional humiliation of being told that they are sinners in need of God's love and compassion. Any person attending those place are well aware of the problems in their life and do not need to have a sermon or even a prayer for the meal they have humbly come to receive. I have myself gave money to a person that was in need and when they say, “God bless you” I say, “No need. I am an atheists. I gave this to you because I care about people not religion.” I have no problem if you have cards or a sign up sheet for them to ask for help. That would be up to them as long as it was not coerced.






• Religious Hospitals


It is a good thing that the denomination would put their time and money into caring for the people of the community. Having a friendly local doctor that you know has a eternal view like you must surely be reassuring. But what if that doctor knows that the treatment is more difficult than it is worth for you to recover? He has the assurance that you will be in an eternal peaceful place anyway. Plus, the family and church could pray for a miracle. What about what your illness may be viewed as sickness from sin? Such as venereal diseases. Or if a woman needs to have an abortion. Will they allow her the choice or will dogma intervene?






• Religious Schools


I think I can clearly show an relationship between the madrasah of the radical Islamist and the faith based schools in America. I want to point out that I know that the word madrasha is a word for school of teaching so I am not talking about the ones of moderate or reasonable programs for education. This may seem like a reach but anyone that has seen the movie Jesus Camp would know what I mean. I am not saying that they are teaching them to shoot and attack others of different beliefs but the radicalism is just as fervent. It is easy for a child to believe the crazy dogma of an adult because that is how we are programed to learn. This is where adults of seeming reasonable behavior think the Earth is 6000 to 10000 years old instead of 4.0 to 4.5byo. I am not saying that every religious school is indoctrinating the students to be mind numb and brainwashed but even in the more moderate ones they insist that the child adhere to a religious world view in all areas of study.






For the people that push these types of conversions on children it is truly child abuse and coercion. What would a reasonable person say to a child that claimed that they are a firefighter, policeman a doctor, astronaut? I know what they say, because it is what I would say, Isn't that cute. They aspire to an idea of something they have no idea what it is. Reasonably we wouldn't think they had any idea about what they were talking about nor would anyone in need of those service act as if that child had any way of acting as a person in those professions. Today it makes the news if a child is able to call 911 in an emergency regardless of how often it is taught and impressed upon children to do that in an emergency. So when something as simple as calling 911 is such a big deal for a child, how much more skeptical should we as adults be that a child has any clue about what being saved means at that age. But of course the adherents believe that the Holy Spirit can convince a child of the “truth” of the scriptures. Likewise, the constant referral to Santa Claus can convince a child that a fat Dane in a white and red suit is going to bring them gifts based upon some goodness scale he has, to determine the level of good and bad they have been in the past 365 days.


When I was in high school I attended a Catholic High school for several weeks before I got kicked out for alleged marijuana use or drinking or both. Someone decided that I would be a good scapegoat as I was not a Catholic. I was a Lutheran at this Catholic school one of a few non-Catholic students to attend. After that fiasco, I went to a Seventh Day Adventist school where my behavior was, of course, better but my grades were not. But at both places I had the opportunity to be an outsider of a group of adherents. But regardless the influence of the dogma of the church was present throughout the day. I really had a time with my questions in the religion class. The Father that taught it would get frustrated with me to no end. Oddly enough the teacher of the science class was very good and it was a much better Biology class then the one at the SDA school were the influence of God in science was pushed just a bit too hard. With only a 6 month exposure to religious schooling I saw the futility of trying to get the students to follow a dogma that only was set in place to control behavior and promote itself. Luckily, even those students that had gone to religious school all their life still had a free mind and not all bought into the beliefs lock stock and barrel. But I am sure if I was to meet some of them Today, that range of freedom would be gone.


Social climbing


It is not an understatement that churches provide a platform for people that would otherwise have nothing to say a platform for them to “shout it from the rooftop.” A man or woman can find a place of honor in a church and soon find themselves ordained in some churches. Some denominations simply requires the “Lord” to show his “spirit” on their work. I am sure many of you know about the Universal Light Church. You can become a minister just by signing up on line at their website. [Go ahead I'll wait.] It is about that easy to have it done too.






The same laws that legally let ULC give out ordinations is the same one that lets any denomination give them out. So in many of these churches there is a shortcut to the top. Why bother with the 2 to 4 years of seminary or Bible college when you can just be ordained right away? Show your able to motivate the masses and you will soon be moving up in the “Jesus club”. People like Ken Ham, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyers, and many others just simply “answered” the Lord's calling on their life and began preaching. I am not saying they haven't had any additional education but the idea is that they follow the “leading” of the Lord to tell then what to do. Now they make millions on the backs of the people that they preach too. It is like what L. Ron Hubbard is credited with saying, If you want to make a lot of money start a religion.


I have thought about how easy it would be for me to “reconvert” and use my experiences to fleece the flock. It seems no matter how much you lie or cheat the children of God you can always come back and ask for forgiveness and begin taking their money once more.


Needless to say even the denominations that have difference among themselves in Christianity make up a powerful force in the United States. But it is the vocal churches that get the attention of the national media and the politicians when it comes times to get elected. It makes good television to have a radical view from either a liberal or a conservative though most Americans may have little to say about a particular issue.


While many of the more liberal or mainstream denominations are either shrinking or maintaining the status quo of followers, the fundamentalist and radical churches are on the rise with growing memberships. But hope is still alive. According to a recent PEW research study that the only group to grow in America in the past 15 years have been the section of non-adherents or non-believing. Interesting enough if it was a single church denomination then it would be the largest in America behind Catholics.

Coming Next Time:

Chapter Eight; HUMANIST POINT OF VIEW part-thirty