The ZERO-God

Believe it or not, but one of the most difficult to understand concepts in Mathematics is the idea of ZERO.   What is ZERO?

Is it something?
Can you count it?
Can you measure it?
How can nothing be something?
How can you count anything that doesn't exist?  

It leads to many philosophical debates and discussions and yet it seems so trivial to the average person.  For example, by saying "How many zigwats are there in the universe", I would have to first describe what a zigwat is and therefore in your mind you could envision this mythical creature and therefore it no longer "does not exist", because it exists inside your mind.  How therefore can I say there are ZERO zigwats?

The reason I bring this somewhat innocuous topic up is because today religion and atheism are at odds.  Especially this time of year when countless towns and cities across this nation of ours roll out their nativity scenes of Joseph,Mary and the baby Jesus.  Like clock work, the nativities go up and the lawyers get busy filing claim after claim for atheists who demand that all of government be devoid of all mention of God and religion.  They claim that religion offends them and leaves them feeling "excluded".  

So my question to them is this:  Does Atheism proclaim a ZERO-God?

Religion is, at its core, a system of beliefs in "something" that holds a group of people together.  But even "nothing" is "something".  Atheism itself means "A belief in No God" and therefore, a belief in a ZERO-God.  It has by its own admission, a religion in which the ZERO-God:

   - Created the universe.
   - Created the earth
   - Created all creatures
   - Created man
   - Listens to man
   - Cares about man

So if government must be devoid of "God" then it must adhere to atheism which in the end demands the belief in a ZERO-God.    Therefore the government would in effect be establishing the religion of the ZERO-God and therefore violating the 1st Amendments "Establishment Clause".  So even THEY would be violating the Constitution themselves whether they like it or not.



A small note on the "establishment clause":
To understand the "Establishment Clause" you need to understand the founders of our country.  In 1534 Henry the 8th, through the "Act of Supremacy"  which declared the king to be the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England.  Later the "Treasons Act" made it punishable by death to not acknowledge that idea.   Because the ministers of the Church of England were paid by the king, they effectively became his "mouth-pieces" to disseminate the "kings truth" rather than "God's truth".  Later groups of "separatists" decided to worship their own way in their own homes.   This caused alarm by the government, leading them to pass the "Act of Uniformity" that required all citizens to attend the Church of England every Sunday.  A person who chose not to attend would be fined 1 shilling every Sunday.   People conducting non-conforming church services would be imprisoned or executed. These acts were what drover our founders, the Pilgrims, to take the long and dangerous voyage over the Atlantic and risk their very lives to come here.

This is what ESTABLISHING A RELIGION really looks like.

Placing a nativity on a courthouse lawn does not EVEN COMPARE with having a church bought and paid for by the government and forcing citizens to attend it.   If our founders saw what some in this country consider "establishing a religion" they would be mortified, because they risked life and limb at the hands of their government while people today just have to say "their feelings were hurt" or "they felt left out" in order to evoke the "establishment clause".

The government has always in the past tried to encourage religion without establishing one.  For example, 1782 Congress reviewed and recommended the printing of the Aitken Bible (also known as the Bible of the Revolution).  Why did they do this?  Because at the time the only Bibles available were the English translation and they were in short supply after the Revolutionary War.  Aitken's paid for the printing of the bible, but he requested Congress to review it and give a recommendation so he could get it printed.  Here is a statement printed inside the bible:

"Reverend Gentlemen,
"Our knowledge of our piety and public spirit leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the edition of the Holy Scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitken. He undertook this expensive work at a time when, from the circumstances of the war, and English edition of the Bible could not be imported, nor any opinion formed how long the obstruction might continue. On this account particularly he deserves applause and encouragement. We therefore wish you, Reverend Gentlemen, to examine the execution of the work, and if approved, to give the sanction of our judgment, and the weigh of your recommendation. 

Was this establishing a religion?  No.  Not in the least!  It was promoting it though.  There in lies the difference.  For example, today the federal government promotes home ownership by allowing home-buyers to deduct their mortgage interest and property taxes from their income.  Why? Because homeowners are a benefit to society.  We become better citizens by putting down roots in our towns and cities.  We become INVESTED into our communities.   If, however, the federal government MANDATED that everyone over the age of 25 buy a home or pay a penalty (kind of sounds like Obama-care doesn't it?) ... then that would be ESTABLISHING home ownership.

Putting up Christmas Trees or having Thanksgiving celebrations does not MANDATE or ESTABLISH a religion... it PROMOTES it.  Why should the government promote religion?  For the same reason it promotes home-ownership.  It makes us better citizens and it helps support the Republic. George Washington said in his Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness

The Republic needs religion to survive (but religion only needs the Republic to leave it alone).