Culture Wars Are Ideological

Culture wars center on ideology. And ideology determines how one understands, and 'puts together" their understanding.

In today's America there is a battle for "truth", which is "real history". This battle is not fought just within our borders, but in the wider world, as it affects the world at large.

There are some that believe that our nation's founding was to promote a Christian ideology. What transpires when this thinking is allowed without challenge, is a type of fundamentalism in application of "authorial sources", whether that be scripture or Church tradition/authorities. Who decides what is to be "real reality", i.e. power in the political realm.

I believe our Founding Fathers were theistic rationalists. They understood the implications of allowing a Church tradition (that includes scriptural traditions) to play out politically. It ends in war over whose interpretation, whose "right" is to be defended, and where will that play out in the reality of others lives who don't believe as the "ruling party". They protected us from this situation by the "Establishment Clause".

Conservative Christians have been concerned over the country's "moral demise" and have entered the public square to influence legislatures to implement their form of "truth". The "Moral Majority" was born and social activism was birthed in the pulpits of many churches. The evanlgelicals were known to have the traditonal values and commitments to the "family, pro-life, and anti-gay" movements. These positions played out politically in lobbying, petitioning, protesting, and appealing. If one did not adhere to these standards, then Christian faith was doubtful.

The Christian Church became political in every aspect, as their view was "total commitment" to Christian values. "Toltal commitment" to Christian values broke the wall between separation of Church and State, re-wrote history, and alienated those whose political views might differ.

I have been reading the writings of our Founding Fathers and find their insight profound. These men were not "Bible believing" Christians, but Deists, theistic rationalist, unitarians, etc. They valued freedom of conscience, when it pertained to religious matters. And they found that tyranny was often the result of combining religion and politics.

Whenever ideology does not allow open dialogue across diverse voices, there will be a lack of freedom for the individual. And our Founders found that the individual conscience and reason was the best way to formulate the "standards" of government.

The culture wars we have today are based on universality, which the Founders believed, or exclusivisity, which the Puritans believed. These ideologies could not be further from each other. But, exclusivist claims to truth do not allow freedom of conscience, freedom of discourse, or reasonable choice.

We are a people, but a diverse people who do not adhere to any particular conviction about religion. We are based upon a rational choice ideology, and not a "determinsitic God" of the Calvinist sort.

Perhaps, I am an Christian Atheist (or a Atheist Believer)

Humans are born within different contexts, which create the identification factors within the child. But, as the child matures and is exposed to a bigger frame of reference, the young adult can choose where he commits. Humans love to identify themselves, as we are social animals, and we "create" our identity by what we commit to. The groups that we commit to, are also, reflective of the values we hold most dear, as reason is developed within these social frames. This is why academic freedom is to be valued. While academic freedom is a value to uphold in allowing the free discourse and discovery within the frame of "reason", it cannot be absolute. Why?Because reason itself is limited within their frames of reference, too, as well, as understanding knowledge's humility, that all is not known yet.....

Atheists are anti-theist, that means "without God". Could atheists stand in opposition to "one form of God"? Thus, it would underwrite and support the "human". I think that an atheist believer is just a "anti-theist" that believes that being human is distinct from being an animal. But, what is a "human"? We cannot reduce the Human to an animal without doing disservice to reason. At the same time, we cannot support the difference (of the human from animal) without some understanding of "god".

Some would argue that belief is at issue when one understands "god" (the religious realm). Others would argue behavior, which would underline the political realm, while still others would argue that the belonging is what makes for the social realm. I believe that all of these must be affirmed for one to be totally human, i.e. the spiritual, the political and the social.

As humans are whole beings, we must affirm all of these "parts" if the whole person is to be "whole". How does one understand "god" and by what authority? Where does one choose to commit, and do service?

If we use the Quadralateral, we understand that the atheist could be believers if they just understood that reason's authority is limited within their specified disciplines. And yet, the social and political realm of the Church must understand that the text and tradition is also limited, which leaves the experience of the individual to determine his own destiny within the bounds of conscience, which is the realm of history....

There is no universal "hope" in the eschaton, but that of the individual's conscience within a specific time frame. There is no universal moral model, nor is there a universal understanding as to "god", as these are contextually bound. There is only a universal form of government which allows freedom and justice for all...