Valentine’s Day is upon us yet again as a reminder of the unsurpassed ingenuity and ascendancy of American capitalism, despite the stormy petrels circling the current economic landscape. Not to worry: the Government in which we trust has promised us Valentine’s stimulation, so get out there and buy something.

None of this interests Quixote that much, and I am certain he will wile away the Valentinian hours pining for Dulcinea del Toboso, except that he’s been pestering me with thoughts about love and such. In particular, he’s wondering if our atheist friends feel the same way about love as we Christians do. I gave it some thought, and compiled some Valentine pointers below for your edification. This is a list of how it’s not done on Valentine’s day, by category*:

If your date says, “How do I look?” Don’t respond:

• When you’re dead, you’re dead atheist: “Heeeeeey Bebe.”
• Christian: “Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Gilead.”
• Elite atheist: “You and a cow have homologous structures.”

If your date says, “Kiss me.” Don’t respond:

• WYDYD atheist: “Come to Butthead.”
• Christian: “Your teeth are like a flock of sheep just shorn. Each has its twin; not one of them is alone.”
• Elite atheist: “Did you know there are millions of bacteria in the human mouth?”

If your date says, “Do you love me?” Don’t respond:

• WYDYD: “Whatever you say, Bebe.”
• Christian: “I liken you, my darling, to a mare harnessed to one of the chariots of Pharaoh.”
• Elite atheist: “Well, your pheromones must be strong tonight. Love’s just a human conception, not an objective or absolute value in any real sense of the word, but my neurons do seem to be firing strangely tonight.”

If your date says, “Will you love me forever?” Don’t respond:

• “Let me sleep on it, baby, baby, let me sleep on it. Let me sleep on it. I’ll give you an answer in the mornin’.”
• “Did you know the Bible says that a wife should be subject to her husband?”
• “Well, we are hard-wired through evolution to care for our mates so that our children grow up to reproduce; therefore, making us successful biological organisms.”

*In Quixote’s mind there are two classes of atheist that may be found within both weak (negative) and strong (positive) atheism. The WYDYD atheist, often referred to as the low-church atheist, does not know or care about Euthyphro, logical syllogisms, Reason, Nihilism, Existentialism, and may or may not believe in Darwinian evolution, etc. He just knows that when you’re dead, you’re dead. By contrast, the elite, or high-church atheist, is generally well-educated, philosophical, and intensely concerned with Science and evidence, among other associated characteristics. Strong or Positive atheism may be represented by the phrase “There is no god or gods.” Weak or Negative atheism may be represented by the phrase “There’s no, or not enough, evidence to persuade me to believe in a god or gods.”

There’s often a seamless transition from “The civil and ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ” to “You should vote for X because he’s promised to propose a bill in Congress to stop Y” within American Christian circles. And by often, I intend to communicate a staggering preponderance of Christians from all brands of American Christianity, along all points of the political spectrum. It’s an inconsistent, and perhaps contradictory, theological passage from the Kingdom of God to a terminus of entanglement with the world. It’s as if a man who removed the internal combustion engine from his car out of environmental concerns, elected to install it to power his windmill instead.

The Areopagus is steadfastly committed to the universal Church, both visible and invisible, and is prepared to apologize in her defense. It is my contention, however, that the Church’s primary difficulties rarely arise from without. After all, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, and let no Christian forget that gates are defensive armaments. If the Christian God attends to the affairs of humankind, can Christianity really be conceived to fail? I pray we recall our creed the next time we are tempted to treat someone outside the faith poorly, say, a scientist, an atheist, a Hindu, or any other ill-perceived threat.

The Church’s foremost troubles decidedly arise from within, from both God’s own people, and false prophets. At present, The Areopagus recognizes two primary evils corrupting the heart of the church: the first is the Church political, the other will be disclosed in a subsequent post. Christianity’s involvement in politics will be subjected to routine criticism as long as this blog endures. It’s time for Christians to rid the Church of this toxin.

I invite readers and commenters, then, to consider the following questions. Do we as Christians genuinely seek to establish another Holy Roman Empire? Do we as Christians really believe the Church needs political influence to survive? Is there any basis in Scripture to support the Church’s political activity, or does the Bible speak against it? Is it possible for the Church to provide a moral voice when it’s lobbying for votes? For those outside the faith, do you approve of the church’s involvement as long as it happens to coincide with your political leanings, or are you prepared to lose a percentage of your voting bloc for your party on account of your support for the separation of church and state?

In preparation for an extended discussion on the Church political, there’s another related consideration to ponder. God comes in judgment on His own people first–with respect to hierarchy, not time: You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god–which you made for yourselves. Therefore I will send you into exile beyond Damascus, says the Lord, whose name is God Almighty (Amos 5:26-27). You may wish to reconsider the next time you think that calamities of any classification are exclusively purposed for non-believers. In days such as these, where it seems many think the Church’s mission is electing those who can ensure us acceptable Supreme Court justices, it’s reasonable to conclude He has the Church in mind.

Free speech is expensive. In honor of those whose will, sacrifice, and capital made and make free speech possible, I propose the following:

Anyone and everyone is encouraged to participate, even MS Quixote and Shemaromans.

Those who ruin it for everyone else will be restricted. Outside of spammers and their ilk, I can’t imagine this happening, but the rule is here in the event it’s necessary. Right. You’re not free to use profanity, either. Those who use profanity will be edited, or forced to wear a Member’s Only jacket. This includes those silly @ and $$ tricks. All decisions in this regard are the unilateral right of the blog owner. Anyone who thinks the Bay City Rollers are the world’s greatest rock band may be subjected to global warming, then forced to wear a Member’s Only jacket, then have their rights to free speech on this blog revoked (having your free speech revoked may mean that I scribble notes down on a napkin for you to use for your comment. In this manner, your speech may not be free, but at least you will have a better comment to post, since free things, generally speaking freely, aren’t worth very much-but you’re free to disagree if you like). Second greatest perhaps; first, immediate dismissal. Anyone who claims the Bayfront Prowlers, however, are the world’s third greatest rock band may be enshrined in the The Areopagus hall of fame. That about sums up the free speech rules (I’m Free-da da, da da, da da da, da da, da da, da da da-I’m Free) except for those who are Aggies, although The Areopagus management is not convinced by evident reason or empirical evidence that Aggies have mastered speech, so perhaps we should let them have a go at it. Aggie speech will be monitored continuously, but anyone who asserts the positive claim that Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, or any other Big Ten Conference University possesses what qualifies for a Bowl Subdivision football program will not have their free speech rights questioned because they will be performing a systematic demonstration of the via negativa. Any comments that pop in and out of existence uncaused onto this blog will be deleted once quantum mechanic science develops to the degree that we can predict where and when the comment will appear. We’re close, so watch it. We’re also nearing completion of the unified theory here at the Areopagus, so soon there will be nothing left to say. Worthwhile additions to this comment policy will be incorporated posthaste, therefore, so suggest away, but be mindful of the comment policy when doing so. In other words, this should be a living document, so my more enlightened friends will feel comfortable commenting.

Addendum: Anyone deemed not sufficiently serious about free speech will be subjected to global warming, forced to wear a Member’s Only jacket, have their free speech rights revoked, then slungshot around the sun resulting in a time warp back to the seventies where they will be subjected to global cooling, and forced to forfeit their Member’s Only jacket. If, perchance, this happens to you, will you PLEASE stand on the streetcorner with a sign warning everyone about the future state of popular music in the 2000’s.