The Ying and the Yang

Does everyone know what a yinyang is? At this point, I would be surprised if you did not, especially among my usual body of readers, who tend to be well-educated. Let me lay out out, just to be sure. A yinyang is that funny symbol with a white swirl and a black swirl meeting each other, in identical sizes and shapes, making up a circle when placed together. The white swirl has a black dot in its largest area, and the black has a white dot in its largest area.

The yinyang is a Traditional Chinese symbol. European mythology has generally contrasted light and dark with good and evil, or with purity and sin. Buddhists don't do this. The yinyang represents, not enemies matching each other with equal power, but two differing and unopposing powers of equal strength, who need each other to survive. The white brings out the black; the black brings out the white. Remove one, and they both suffer. In the excellently-written "Avatar: The Last Airbender" series, the Moon and Ocean spirits are depicted as a black and white fish swimming around each other. The Moon and the Ocean, as mythical creatures as well as scientific entities, act upon each other, but are not considered adversaries.

The element "yin" is female, and the element "yang" is male.

So let's pretend for a moment that you are an old practitioner of Chinese Traditional beliefs. You have a little shop in town, where you sell yinyang pendants, other pendants like the multicolored, five-pointed star, herbs and spices, and about eight different flavors of Pocky. The adults like the spices, the teens like the pendants, which they wear carelessly (but that doesn't bother you), the kids love the Pocky.

One day, a young woman enters your shop, wearing a pendant that depicts a big black spot. Trying to make conversation, you admire her black spot pendant. To your surprise, she screams and curses at you and tells you that it is a yinyang. Puzzled and confused, trying to pull yourself together under her onslaught, you try to explain the concept of the yinyang and why it is not a black spot... why the yang is as important as the yin and the yin as important as the yang. She tells you that you're a racist bigot and an idiot, threatens to burn down your house, and storms out of the shop, leaving you shaken.

Over the next few months, you start seeing this more and more. People enter the shop with black pendants or white pendants and insist that they are yinyangs. You don't really care if they want to wear black or white pendants. You are a bit concerned that they think these are yinyangs, but any attempts to explain otherwise are met with open hostility and, at times, threats. You keep up your shop, you are happy to explain your traditions to those who ask, and you delight in explaining how yinyang equivalents can be found in almost any other culture out there, including their own... but you have learned to tense up and shut up when you see someone wearing a black pendant or a white pendant.

Then the government, one day, declares that since you sell yinyang pendants (to anybody who wants them, as always), you are required to manufacture and sell white dots and black dots to anybody who wants them (which you honestly wouldn't mind doing and have already done a few times), and you are specifically required to label them as "yinyang pendants" (which is the part that bothers you). On that very same day, people come into your shop, screaming insults at you when they realize you haven't decided whether to lie about Traditional Chinese symbols for the sake of your income or close your shop entirely. "Your rights aren't being affected," they insist, "because you are allowed to say that the black and white symbol is a yinyang as long as you do it very quietly in your house while you're engaging in acts of meditation." Then they start mocking you. "The government hasn't redefined yinyang at all, and I bet you can't prove otherwise!" they say, and when you try to explain the history of your people and the yinyang equivalents of other cultures, they tell you that you are stupid and uneducated, and, therefore, nothing you say matters.

But most of all, since you have never objected when they simply wore the black or white dots, and, though you may have been perturbed when they said it was yinyang, you would not have forbidden them through the government from making their claims, you are saddened and perplexed by their insistence that you not only follow their terminology, but sell those black and white dots specifically as yinyangs in your own shop.

And now, in the aftermath of the government's decision, what seems strangest to you is that the people who won, the people who decided to "redefine" your symbol and shut you up with threats of government punishment should you disagree, seem to be the angriest of all the parties once involved in the now-stifled debate of whether a yinyang can exist without the yin or without the yang.

Flags and Issues

On March 19, 1777, Capt. Moses Dunbar was hanged for being a Loyalist. He had not only joined the King's army, but he was caught trying to recruit others to the cause. He was the only man in Connecticut ever hanged for treason. It is said that his own father gave them the rope that made the noose.

His (second) wife gave birth to their youngest son, also named Moses Dunbar, almost exactly nine months later. I am directly descended from that youngest son.

Am I proud of ol' Moses Dunbar? Well, no and yes. I don't support the ideals that he appeared to the patriots to endorse by joining the soldiers who were fighting them. I definitely don't advocate taxation without representation, or other methods by which the monarchy  refused proper governance to its territory in the New World. But honestly, I admire his willingness to stand up for what he believed, and he wrote a fascinating letter which he read at his execution, in which he forgave all involved and asked forgiveness for his own sins from anyone affected by them. He went to his death expressing confidence in God, and that is something to be proud of.

I wonder what the reaction would be if Connecticut insisted upon flying the British Flag from the State Capital in order to proudly declare their deep and abiding appreciation for the old British Colonial Empire. I wonder, furthermore, what we might think if the people who supported this action used the British Flag as a symbol to explain their distate for post-Christian government-forced social issues such as abortion and gay 'marriage'. What should such people say to those who question the wisdom of flying a flag of colonialism while claiming to be the only group in America who are truly interested in freedom?

This is a problem that we are facing now, with the Confederate Flag being flown by people who insist that it is all about "states' rights" and that anybody who is squeamish about Confederate history must be a big-government liberal. I can't help but wonder if, when the Southern States pushed through the Slave Fugitive Act, if they told abolitionists that it didn't have to affect them because "if you don't want to own slaves, just don't buy any slaves - nobody is forcing you to be part of it", while making anything but the whole-hearted pursuing and capturing of fleeing ex-slaves punishable by government action. In short, my point is this: Yes, it is possible to be in favor of deregulation and lowering taxes without flying the "Stars and Bars", and the Southerners would do well to remember that.

This said:

I can't say I like the push to remove the Confederate Flag from Civil War memorials in the South, or ending re-enactments, or basically pushing it 'under the rug' the way that Germany has done with the swastika. I also think that any choice to remove it from a state building should be the decision of the state itself, not the Federal Government, though I also see nothing wrong with The People pushing to make it happen through popular opinion. Granted, I don't think personally that the Confederate Flag belongs with the "Flags of the Present" on government buildings meant to administer the Present - tax collection, license renewal, etc. - but I would be about as 'shocked' at seeing a Confederate Flag at a Southern Civil War memorial as I would be to find a cross in the chapel of a college. (I would, however, encourage all who want to fly the flag personally to read the Reasons for Secession historical documents. You may find the modern perception of the Civil War, as being primarily about "states' rights" or "economics" rather than slavery, challenged... strongly.

And now that I'm on the outs with both sides, let me say what I want most to say about the issue.

This is not as important as keeping the government from imposing further gun control laws upon us. It is not as important as keeping the government from redefining the sexually-dimorphic pair-bond to exclude sexual dimorphism and pair-bonding. Every single Confederate flag in the nation is not worth the life of one baby destined for abortion. And killing Obamacare dead will save many more lives than are affected by that particular piece of cloth.

So debate it all you like, work it out all you like, choose sides... but don't let this issue make Southerner Republicans hate Northerner Republicans. The Democrats are weak. This is our country to win or lose, and breaking out into virulent hatred over this particular issue could leave us with Four More Years... of Clinton, or even worse, Sanders the Full-Out Avowed Socialist.

Ask yourself this: What means more to you? What do you think will do more damage to this country?

The Stars and Bars?

Or the Hammer and the Sickle?

Better the Stars and Bars in South Carolina than the Hammer and Sickle over all of us. That's my stance on the issue, as a Northerner Conservative Republican who has no love for the Confederate Flag.

Dr. Ruth and the Evil Warnings

Dr. Ruth Westheimer, the mildly scandalous sex therapist, now in her mid-80's, has suddenly managed to turn the entire feminist movement against her. Oh dear. What on earth did she manage to say to rattle them so much?

"I know it’s controversial, but for your program, I’m going to stand up and be counted and, like I do in the book, be very honest. I am very worried about college campuses saying that a woman and a man or two men or two women, but I talk right now about woman and man, can be in bed together, and at one time, naked, and at one time, he or she — most of the time they think she can say, I changed my mind. No such thing is possible."

 Aye, that's relatively controversial as stated, However, in subsequent tweets, she clarified what she meant - and didn't mean - to say:

I am 100% against rape. I do say to women if they don't want to have sex with a man, they should not be naked in bed w/him.
That's risky behavior like crossing street against the light. If a driver hits you, he's legally in the wrong but you're in the hospital.

So what's the problem?

Apparently, the naysayers insist that Dr. Ruth is claiming that the man's action is no longer rape and should no longer be prosecuted as such, that the man has no responsibility over his actions whatsoever, and that she is basically placing the full fault of rape on the woman. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be able to refute her position without resorting to the bizarre, possibly because her position is quite reasonable. One commenter on an American Thinker article claimed that "blaming women for the rape", as Dr. Ruth was supposedly doing, was like "saying that if a dog humps your leg, it's your fault for having a leg." Others have brought up the old "asking for it by wearing a skirt that exposes her knees" claim. I find it strange that feminists are so bent on their goals of "free sex" that they cannot bear the thought of a woman engaging in any sort of selective behavior in her sex life without having to come to the bizarre conclusion that men are incapable of being responsible for anything they do.

But that isn't, at the core, what is bothering me about this "controversy".

What the naysayers are doing, at the core, is claiming that a private individual, however notable, cannot give advice to women in order to minimize the chances of them becoming victimized without somehow affecting the legal responsibility of the perpetrator of the crime. The reason this bothers me is because it depends upon the belief that we cannot simply choose how to regulate our own behavior; it must be unregulated entirely or under government control.

It seems that people are losing sight of the excellent "third way" between regulation and deregulation, the way upon which this country was founded. John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Putting aside the question of Christianity and religion in morality for the moment, I would hope that we can all agree that the intent of structuring the Constitution such that the government should not regulate us was to allow us to take up the responsibility of regulating ourselves. If we lose sight of that, we may deserve the tyranny we risk bringing upon ourselves.

Women should have every right to take control over their own sexuality by setting boundaries, starting with the very simplest and easiest to understand: if you don't want to have sex with a man, it will be much, much easier to avoid doing so if you do not climb naked into bed with him.

Everyone knows what I'm talking about

McCall's has a new dress pattern up, called simply "Princess dresses". It doesn't have the Disney mark on it. It does not use the word "Cinderella". Clearly it must be 'not' the dress worn by the live-action Cinderella in the new movie. McCall's has a habit of doing this, and to be honest, it makes me giggle. Last year, we had 'not' Elsa, a dress with a sheer upper bodice and a train that started just under the arms. Before that, we had 'not' Merida, a princess-seamed green dress with white elbow and shoulder puffs.

Well, I'm about to do it to you guys. I am about to make one of those posts where everyone knows what I'm talking about, but I am going to get pretty far before identifying it plainly, and I am not going to delve into the details at all. Frankly, I don't need the details to make my point.

King David, despite being described as a man after God's on heart, did some pretty dreadful things. He lusted after a woman who was not his wife. He sent for her and had sex with her. Then he got her husband killed, when her husband refused to help cover up for her pregnancy. That is arguably pretty dreadful stuff with pretty permanent results. Of course, he did not escape punishment. God sent a prophet to explain why he had done wrong, and the child died. Was this 'enough' punishment? Was it within the statute of limitations? Should God have allowed King David to learn his sin through a prophet he already knew, instead of, say, sending in someone who was unconnected to the King? What about their second son, Solomon? Was God wrong to have given Solomon the kingdom? Was it a sign that David had not 'repented enough'? King David and his son have been dust for thousands of years.

Should we forgive King David? What crime has he committed against us?

There is another man who has been dust for slightly less time. His name was originally Saul of Tarsus, but he was renamed "Paul" after his conversion. He wrote an awful lot of the New Testament and spoke clearly on a variety of sins and evils, including most of the New Testament verses against homosexual behavior. Although he did not engage in homosexual behavior as far as we know, he did hunt down Christians and kill them before his conversion. He considered himself the very best Pharisee of Pharisees at a time when that was basically the most pious thing you could be. He was even celebrated for his piousness. He had to understand that he was doing wrong, and change his ways.

Does Paul's sin make his lessons on sinful behavior irrelevant? Should we take his writings seriously?

Both of these issues are making the rounds in recent days, due to the revelation of actions committed by a young man when he was a teenager. This should indeed be a controversy, but it should be an entirely different kind of controversy than the one I see floating around article comments and chat rooms. This should be a dialog about the problems that lead to inappropriate sinful behavior and the proper criminal justice system response when the perpetrator is underaged. Instead, it has become a two-prong argument, and both prongs seem geared specifically towards targeting Christianity rather than the actual sinner.

The "King David prong" can be summed up as a movement I have seen in recent years geared towards punishing people for the 'sin' of "Not Living Up To Our Expectations". In it, someone is judged, not by whether he acknowledges his sin as wrong or tries to justify it as right, but whether he has dared to hold himself to a standard that he has violated with his behavior. In this 'brave new' situation, you are better off to keep your (and others') expectations low, to ensure that you do not fail, than to aim high and miss your mark - even if your actual shot lands much higher than it ever would have managed were you to keep your expectations small. These are the people who excuse the sin of people like Bill Clinton and Lena Dunham because the perpetrators maintain that they have committed no crime, but do their best to drive out any pastor who has admitted to adultery, acknowledged his error, and asked for forgiveness. This is the exact opposite of what Christianity should be about.

Think about yourself for a moment. Never mind other people's sins. Think about your expectations of yourself. Think about other people's expectations of you. Because I am a Christian and because my sins are generally not severe in modern society and not obvious to a casual onlooker, some people have this notion of me as this perfect sweet excellent woman, and I hate it. If I try to note that I'm not really all that wonderful, they take it as modesty. In this present day, I am downright afraid to have people take that view of me. I never know if they are going to turn virulently upon me, if I should have a sin revealed that actually horrifies them... not for the sin itself (and utterly regardless of my response to it), mind you, but for the new, manufactured 'sin' of "Not Living Up To Their Expectations".

Why do you think God used King David? Why do you think God went after Saul of Tarsus? Why do you think God chose the Israelites, a group of such unruly, stubborn, imperfect people that they kept getting showed up by pagan Romans who had more faith in Christ than the very people who had been awaiting His arrival? Do you think maybe God wanted to teach us that He can make perfect where we stumble? That God can use people who don't "Live Up To Expectations"? Christianity is not about a bunch of perfect people talking about the way we should live. Christianity is about a bunch of sinners finding out that God is patient and loving, and that His laws come from Himself. That leads us into the other prong.

We could call the second prong the "Saul of Tarsus prong". In this particular case, it centers around homosexual behavior, but it could really be used for any convenient sin. Unlike the "King David Prong", this one primarily springs from non-Christians, and it, too, misunderstands what Christianity is for.

Paul's writings show that he was very aware of his own sins and failings. Despite that, he wrote an awful lot about what was sinful and what wasn't, and what was proper behavior for a Christian and what wasn't. Did anybody ever question the appropriateness of a man who used to drag off Christians to their death in saying that the 'stronger brother' should not burden the 'weaker brother' and the 'weaker brother' should not condemn the 'stronger brother'? Why would anybody listen to someone with a "thorn in his flesh" when he says that all have sinned and that eternal life comes through the grace of God? We certainly hold people up to a similar standard today. Should a man who committed adultery (and repented of his sin) be allowed to teach about marriage? Should a woman who had an abortion be allowed to run a pro-life organization? Should a teen who got out of a gang be allowed to tell other teens how to stay out of gangs?

The whole point of being a Christian is that you are holding yourself to God's standard. You are failing to live up to God's standard. You are repenting and receiving forgiveness for your sins against God's standard. Here's another way of putting it. Would you go to a dentist who has cavities? Well, perhaps instead of looking at his mouth, you should listen to his words. If he tells you that the American Dental Association recommends that you brush twice a day, should you decide that the American Dental Association is wrong because he doesn't brush twice a day and he has gingivitis? Of course not! In fact, making that conclusion is, in debate, called "ad hominem" - it is what happens when you attack the bearer of news rather than the originator. So should someone who has engaged in sexual sin and repented of it be allowed to become the bearer of God's news about homosexual behavior? Of course! (And here I finally drop the name.) Josh Duggar does not speak against gay 'marriage' according to Josh Duggar's authority. Josh Duggar speaks against gay 'marriage' according to God's authority. Of course, it's so much easier to pound Josh Duggar into the ground than to go up against God... but you must be aware that Christianity is a place for sinners who repent, for people who miss the mark and wish they hadn't, for people who know that they are sick and are seeking out the Physician. If you want a religion of "perfect people" who are telling you "how to turn yourself perfect", go seek out Scientology. God's Law is about what works. Christianity is about what happens to you when you realize that you can't do it by your own power.

And eventually, when you stand before God and He says, "Why didn't you listen to me?" it will do you no good to say, "Because I didn't like the looks of the bearer of Your message."

Get out of the way and let us work

Let's talk about washing machines for just a moment. What kind of features do washing machines have? They let you choose your cycle. They let you customize your cycle if necessary. Then you start 'em up and off they go. Many washing machines are advertised as being "quiet". The quietest machines tend to draw the most interest. Imagine if someone tried to market a washing machine that sent alerts to your phone and beeped a tone for each part of the cycle, so that it notified you when it was rinsing, spinning, agitating, rinsing, spinning... How many people would buy it?

I don't want my washing machine to tell me what it's doing! I use a washing machine so that I can freakin' dump in my load and press two buttons and walk away! It tells me when it's done, but since my laundry area is down in the basement, I usually don't even hear it. My washing machine is my servant. I want it to shut up and do its job so that I don't have to.

How about operating systems? I'm a definite computer geek (used to work as a software engineer, actually), so I know operating systems. One of the biggest mistakes that Microsoft made at one point was integrating Internet Explorer too deeply into Windows. It complicated the use of the machine and hurt people who wanted to choose a different web browser. Microsoft had to back off and understand what an operating system is for. Users don't want to have to think about their operating system. They don't want to have to fiddle with it. They don't want it distracting them from their work. They don't want it choosing their productivity applications for them and penalizing the applications it doesn't think you should be using. We just want the darn thing to work - quietly - in the background - and leave us be.

Our government could take a lesson from the appliance and operating system markets.

This morning, I read an article talking about "what women want" in the context of government programs and government issues. What do women want from government? "Equal pay" for "equal work"? Free daycare programs? Free contraception? What do they want? One of my favorite webcomic authors, RH Junior, explains 'what women want' exceedingly well in a comic featuring a feminist character who is fed up with all of the expectations placed on her. "What you want ain't complicated. You want what everyone wants, male or female -- to be treated decent."

When I hear the question of what women want from government, the question I actually hear is, "What's your price?" It seems that liberal Democrats particularly are simply interested in more and bigger government, in bigger government regulation, in higher government taxation, in more control over our lives. That's why they bother to ask what "women" want from the government, rather than simply seeing us as people. What do blacks want from government? What do Hispanics want from government? What do parents want from government? What do the poor want from government? What do all of us have in common? We just want to be 'treated decent'.

In short, they aren't asking, "What do you want?" They are asking, "What can we give you to convince you to let us control your life?"

What we want is for the government to not have so much control over our lives that we could possibly need it to treat groups of people differently from each other. What we want is what we want from our operating system and our washing machine. We want a government that operates in the background and keeps an environment for us in which we can choose what we want in life and make our best try for it. We want a government that we don't have to deal with on a regular basis. We want a government that gets out of our way and does its job. We don't want pop-ups, we don't want "app suggestions", we don't want integrated crap that gets in the way of the programs we like to use... we just want it to be background, uncomplicated, and working properly.

Remember this as we launch headlong into this election year, and people start asking you what you want the government to give you in exchange for running your life for you.

Who keeps your brother?

So the news is buzzing about Obama's dealings with this organization called "My Brother's Keeper", which has something to do with tutoring black teenagers. The phrase was used by Obama himself in a call for the government to interfere in our lives as much as possible 'for our own good'.

Of course, his use of this phrase and his support of this group is horribly funny for several reasons.

1. The very phrase "my brother's keeper", as Obama pointed out as a misguided attempt to justify his point, was spoken by Cain to God when God asked Cain where his brother Abel was. Of course, Cain had ample reason to know where Abel was, having just killed him in anger. However, all that aside, assuming as Cain did that God did not know about the murder, it could have been a valid question.

"Am I my brother's keeper?"

What he meant by it was this: My brother is a grown man, an adult. He doesn't need someone to hold his hand. He doesn't need me to always know where he is and what he's doing. He doesn't need someone else making all his decisions for him as if he was a child. My brother doesn't need a 'keeper'. In short, "my brother's keeper" was a sarcastic barb meant to make the point that adults don't need other people living their lives for them - the exact opposite of the way Obama used the phrase.

Shorter version: Obama took seriously a sarcastic phrase spoken by a liar and murderer.

2. Obama hasn't been his own brother's keeper. Barack Obama still has a half-brother in Kenya who still lives in a hut made of garbage because it's the best he's got. Despite the fact that the average monthly salary in Kenya is 1% of Obama's presidential salary, Obama can't seem to spare a single dollar for his own family. Of course, that's just his half-brother. He also has an aunt living on government welfare funds in Massachusetts, despite being an illegal immigrant.

Even if we play the sarcastic phrase straight, as Obama did, isn't it telling that he cares more about making other people help strangers than about helping his own family with his own money?

3. Obama doesn't treat black tutors very well when they don't fit into his political agenda. Now, my first two points may make it seem as if I object to people tutoring black teens. Far from it. I've done it myself (I am willing to tutor those in need and many of them have been black and teenaged), and I think it is a solidly good idea to do what we can, as a personal and Christian care for those in need rather than a government program or presidential guilt-trip, to alleviate some of the burdens caused by the rampant fatherlessness in the black communities.

However, one of the men well-known in his community for tutoring black teens in need as part of his many contributions to society was nearly killed by a criminal whom Obama identified as a metaphorical son. Protecting tutors of black teens seems to mean nothing to Obama when he can use an incident to inflame racial tensions and ensure that the only people able to safely tutor black teens are blacks who have not "gone white", "turned Oreo", or "become Uncle Toms" (I'll spare you the Uncle Tom pet peeve today), and therefore are likely even less qualified to aid these people than the people they are supposed to be aiding.

Then again, with Common Core coming into full swing especially in the big cities where underprivileged black teens tend to live, who will know how to tutor them anymore?

Religious Freedom leading to higher costs for nonbelievers?

My husband and I were discussing our health insurance situation this morning. We are on that very uncomfortable line in which we may possibly see only a very small increase in income, and it will be enough to make health insurance vastly more expensive under the ACA. I listed the alternatives I'd been considering. Chief among them was a Christian medi-share program, which has held costs down by refusing to cover 'vices' (birth control, abortion, sex-change surgery, etc.) and by not being subject to all the vagueries and bizarrities of the ACA which is driving up costs all over the country.

(Aren't costs coming down? Sort of. The cost of care is rising. The amount of money spent on care is falling. How does that work? A recent study shows that 25% of insured Americans are now putting off needed care because they cannot afford it!)

This is actually not my topic for the day.

As I explained our options, I suddenly realized something strange. "The situation is crazy," I told my husband as I put dishes into the dishwasher (yes, I leave supper dishes until the next morning), "but between our intelligence and our easily-proven adherence to our faith, we should be able to get by."

The original intent of the First Amendment statement on religion was to prevent the Federal Government from interfering in the free expression of religion. Among the first and most common practices defeated by application of the First Amendment were mandates and 'taxes' requiring everyone, whether a member or not, to contribute to the state-sanctioned church. In short, one of the biggest fears the Democrats plant in our minds regarding religion is that we may, if it is not suppressed, be forced to pay extra money to the government simply for the 'crime' of not adhering to the government-approved religion.

Curiously, a twisted version of this is now happening, and the Democrats are the ones responsible.

Now that the government has been reaching deeper and deeper into our personal lives, to the point where it not only can order us to purchase medical insurance, but also decide how much we should pay, what coverages we should receive, and how our doctors should be allowed to treat our ailments, it must satisfy the First Amendment by permitting religious organizations to take an exemption. This is especially true due to the Contraception Mandate, which I've spoken of before.

Now this is the fascinating result. Since people are increasingly being pidgeonholed into expensive, inefficient government programs and not being permitted by law to solve their problems through simpler measures that work well, only the religious folk are capable of living well with less income by taking advantage of the religious exemption. By all of my research, if we get bumped just barely into that higher ACA cost level, being Christians instead of atheists is going to save us at least an estimated $5,000 per year.

I know this isn't a very new thing. The Amish, for instance, are allowed to exempt themselves from Social Security taxes, and the Social Security program is certainly problematic. However, the ACA is now kicking this disparity into high gear.

From here, we have two alternatives. The Democrats would weaken these religious exemptions, damage the First Amendment if it could not be reworded into uselessness completely, ushering in a new era of religious persecution as people of faith are forced to openly celebrate and directly fund evil of various sorts. The Republicans would reduce government reach and control until an atheist could once again receive equal treatment from the government, and the lifestyles of people of faith would not have to conflict with theirs.