I was listening on NPR the other day and they were interviewing a man -- apparently a Democrat -- who was railing on Bush's nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Alito. This man went on and on about what an ultra-conservative Alito was and how he was going to ruin the Supreme Court. What was funny was the man's rhetoric:
"Alito is the type of man who's going to allow religious displays at courthouses and civic buildings! He's the type of man who's going to allow for Christmas displays..."
Yeah, what a whack-job.
I couldn't help but think, as I listened to the man, that he must not realize that the majority of Americans AGREE with allowing public displays of religion. In fact, we're coming into the holiday season where everyone's favorite thing to see is Christmas decorations hanging on lightpoles all over the city. So in calling Alito an ultra-religious tool, the man was essentially alienating 90% of America.
Let's call this the Michael Moore Syndrome. Michael Moore pisses off so many Americans (or, at least, me) because he not-too-subtly refers to how stupid most Americans are, or at least anyone with a conservative political leaning.
I just heard a similar interview of Jimmy Carter on NPR where they were talking about his new book and complaining about "religious fundamentalism taking over politics." He made veiled references to conservatism (and if anyone knows about conservatism, it's Jimmy Carter) and how it was altering the Constitution by breaking down the wall between Church and State. If I could have called in, I would have told him that I do not for one moment believe that even the most liberal Founding Father would have disagreed with the government displaying the Ten Commandments on its lawn.
I'm getting sick of liberals saying that they hold to the true meaning of the Constitution. That's crap. Why don't they just tell the truth and say that they are trying to alter the Constitution? That's allowed, if you have a majority. But they DON'T have a majority of American public opinion, so instead they hide behind lobbyists and lawsuits and force their hand.
7 years ago
5 comments:
I think both “conservatives” and “liberals” like to lay claim to a monopoly on the “true meaning” of the Constitution, and neither of them has it. You know, I think that most "liberals" would be surprised to discover that they have many conservative leanings, and most "conservatives" would be surprised to discover that they are more liberal than they realize. In fact, I think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are, for the most part, manipulative labels that the media and politicians use to tie neat ribbons around different demographics and cultural ideologies. With the issues so efficiently polarized, people are more likely to spend their time bashing the opponent than debating the issues. When the issues ARE debated, they’re so heavily burdened with cultural overtones that it’s difficult to come to any objective conclusions.
I think the constitution is constantly being altered by liberals and conservatives alike. That was the point. Although our “unalienable rights” are not to be denied, the constitution grows and evolves with society. (Interestingly, rights ARE being denied through the Patriot Act. Even though this nasty piece of work was pushed through by a Republican majority, I know both “conservatives” and “liberals” who are appalled by it, and many on both counts. In addition, we’re all equally responsible for it.)
As far as displaying the 10 C’s on public property is concerned, I don’t have a strong opinion about it, but I still lean toward the separation of church and state. I agree with you that most of the founding fathers would probably have no problem displaying the 10 C’s at a courthouse, but in their day most everyone (nearly 100%) had some sort of Judeo Christian bent. Today the percentages are a little different, and about 10% don’t fall into the Judeo Christian or Islam categories. We’re no longer a just a European melting pot. Our numbers include Sihks, Jains, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, Atheists, Agnostics, Obeahists, Ashantists, Pagans, Wiccans, et cetera…., not to mention plenty of the “spiritual but not religious” variety. Democracy is supposed to protect minority rights as well, right?
The USA is not the same place it was 200 years ago, and it was never intended to be a theocracy. I’m not saying we should run out and erase “In God We Trust” from our currency. The term “god” seems broad enough to suit the majority of people. Even many atheists and agnostics have their own personalized abstractions of the word. The Ten Commandments, however, are a specific law given to a specific race of people with a specific religion/philosophy.
For the sake of argument, let’s invert the matter. Suppose you went to your local court building one day. On the lawn was displayed a gigantic bronze sculpture of Sartre’s book “Being and Nothingness,” or perhaps the “Avesta.” Your community, comprised mostly of sulky Existentialists and festive Pagans, looked down on you as one of its few members to follow the strange and dubious Mormon religion. Maybe instead of swearing on a Bible, witnesses were required to swear on a stone placard with the word “absurd” engraved on it…or maybe something like “earth, wind, fire, water.” Hehha. How would you feel?
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. Good post.
p.s., I ain't a Mormon no more, but I sure like what Joe Smith had to say in his 11th article: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
Chrissa and I actually had a good discussion about the 10 Commandments display when it was in the news. I love history and religion of all kinds...as well as philosophy...and love how our law and Constitution are rooted in Enlightened philosophy as well as Judeo-Christian law(and Sumerian-Babylonian religious-civic law, by the way). I think having a monument tips our hat to those origins and that's why I like it. I think having a Christian crucifix would be tasteless and I wouldn't agree with it. But the 10 Commandments actually has some validity being there.
I don't think any government building NEEDS a monument. But I think it's unfortunate when intolerance forces us to remove religious artifacts...even when it's the majority religion.
I agree with your comments about "conservative" and "liberal" labels...and that I was falling into that trap somewhat. Unfortunately, I'm bounded by my language.
I also appreciate your example of swearing on a book with "Absurd" printed in it. I think that we should allow more than one option for swearing (and we do). I think that the word "God" covers most religions, even if it once meant the Judeo-Christian god. And if you don't want to invoke God's name then you can swear in a different manner. But I don't think we should get rid of the ritualistic swear-in process.
The bigger issue that I'm talking about here is WHOSE RIGHTS NEED TO BE CATERED TO IN A DEMOCRACY? Obviously, we'd like everyone to be happy. But that's not going to happen. So do we cater to those few obnoxious and vocal (I really do feel that they are obnoxious) people who will not be satisfied until all culture is sanitized to fit their desires of a truly PC society with absolutely no mention of God because it offends them? I don't think so. That's why it's built on the idea of majority rule. However, when it is important and we CAN cater to the minority and especially not force them to believe, then I agree we should do it. But I don't think displaying Christmas lights is forcing them to do anything nor is it intolerate. Do you?
I personally enjoy Christmas decorations 'round town. (I loathe any Yule activity prior to Thanksgiving, but that's a whole other syndrome.) I like seeing red ribbons and green holly and twinkling lights hanging from lamp posts and storefronts.
I appreciate the sense of intimidation that comes along with being a minority, but Christmas has become so secular that I have to laugh when people condemn its public display. I even know a few self-righteous snoots who disdain Christmas because it's become so "worldly". The modern American concept of Christmas has become divorced from its religious underpinnings; it's not about the Messiah's birth in a lowly manger, it's about a jolly man in a red suit bequeathing gifts on the [First] world's good children. Indeed, "Santa" is Mssr. Claus's first name these days, not a title.
Christmas nowadays can be enjoyed by everybody, without anybody needing to feel threatened. It's a safe, commercial holiday with a feel-good message everbody can get behind: Good will toward all men! Whoops, that should probably read "all men and women"!
i'm still not sure i agree about the ten commandments. a monument isnt really an artifact. but as for the christmas decorations, they don't bother me. (the ten commandments don't personally bother me either.) what was Chrissa's take on the issue?
Chrissa's take is that Christmas decorations don't bug her (but, like Dan, pre-Thanksgiving Christmas does)...but she's against public display of the 10 Commandments. She feels that government shouldn't have anything to do with religion and that religion shouldn't have anything to do with government.
It bothers me when I hear a certain political policy or organization being lauded in church. I'm against that. However, I have no problem with one's religion influencing his or her political stance. You should always vote with your conscience.
So I don't agree with using a political forum to grandstand religion or vice versa. So it's a fine line with me: is displaying the 10 Commandments on a courthouse suggesting that America is a Judeo-Christian society? You could probably take it that way (just as I might wonder about a courthouse in the Middle East bearing the crescent moon)...I, for one, don't but I admit that you could.
The Founding Fathers were a very religious group of individuals. Most of them were Unitarian, which was a very secular-intellectual version of Christianity, and Thomas Jefferson had major issues with the New Testament. However, you can read time and time again how they felt they were achieving God's purpose in designing the government that they did: as can be seen in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble. Other influential Enlightened philosophers – like Voltaire – were more aggressively agnostic.
To say that they espoused a complete separation of Church and State, I feel, is a tough sell.
One final comment...
I can’t help but think of all the “enlightened” travelers who leave America to get away from Western society. They travel to Southeast Asia for example, and are so amazed at how enlightened Eastern society is. What they forget is that India and Thailand and all those governments espouse Hinduism and Buddhism and Jainism, etc. And they are much worse than we are with religious discrimination. And then, of course, there is the example of the Soviet Union, which was an anti-religious government.
It is somewhat easy to rail against the U.S. for its “discriminatory” policies against atheists. Every time I’ve heard of someone suing a school district for forcing their child to sing Christmas songs in choir or hear a prayer at a graduation ceremony, they tend to win…because of the very thing which some of you are espousing: that we need to cater to the minority and the majority needs to suck it up. That’s why I think these people are obnoxious: because they are so offended even to hear the word “God.” How enlightened they are…
Post a Comment