On January 20, Barack Obama will officially be sworn in as the president of the United States and there is already a substantial amount of controversy surrounding the ceremony. The invocation is to be done by Pastor Rick Warren, who was invited to perform the initiation by the president elect himself. In addition to several gay rights groups being upset that Obama would invite the Pastor, and whom consider it contradictory to the promises Obama has made, the American Humanist Association has filed a lawsuit affirming that the statement “so help me God,” included in the invocation is unconstitutional. Apparently, this lawsuit is being filed by the same guy who lost previous identical lawsuits in 2001 and 2005.
I suspect the outcome will be the same for this lawsuit as well. To me, it just doesn’t make sense that if you are elected into public office, then you are somehow exempt of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Those who are elected by a majority still have those inherent rights the forefathers determined applicable to every individual. To suggest otherwise and to hinder someone from making an oath to their god is infringing upon the very constitution such groups claim is being breached already. However, despite their proclamation, it is truly their desire which would be the trespass if put into action. The first amendment states it protects against religion as it applies to law and not the free exercise thereof.
The constitution protects us against many things, but one thing it doesn’t offer, is the absolute protection against being offended. The constitution and, indeed, the very meaning of liberty itself, denote that sometimes, unfortunately, you’re going to step on a few toes in your exercise of these freedoms. It is inevitable in a democracy, and such people as the American Humanist Association need to reflect on exactly what battles they are choosing to fight and when it is appropriate. Unfortunately, they don’t, and as our country teeters on the brink of falling into a permanent state of economic and social dejection, we have people who are getting all worked up about an oath; and an oath to what means exactly? To improve this country and to lead it to a state that is better than whence it was found by the incoming administration. Therefore, I would challenge any of those offended by “under God” or “so help me God” to not look at the words, but the maxim, or motive behind it. Truthfully, the reason behind why such an oath is being made should be of most concern and focus, not necessarily upon what deity or conception thereof (depending on your worldview) it is.
To be truthful there is a part of me, being a Christian which would like nothing more than for every incoming president or official to swear unto God that they will make the choices which only serve in the ultimate best interest of the nation, but to do so would contradict those very principles and freedoms that protect myself. Thereby, to advocate such a thing would promote the very elimination of those freedoms and liberties that I hold dear. I have no issues with any blessing or oath during the invocation and the elements of such should be based upon the president-to-be’s discretion. That is, if an atheist or agnostic gets elected, than he can opt not to make an oath to a higher power. Likewise, if a Buddhist gets elected than he can opt to make an oath onto him. It should be up to the incoming President, how THEIR inauguration goes, for though it is clearly in the public view, we cannot forget the personal nature of the event as well.
Furthermore, why it has been a part of the invocation so long isn’t because it is trying to single out any one religion, but rather a ceremony where the candidate determines it is appropriate to make an oath to something greater than himself, above his own self-interest and swear to continue to protect those rights, which are considered an inherent part of mans being. That is, freedom, brotherhood or sisterhood, truth, justice, liberty, equality and the like. Of course, we could always just smash a bottle of champagne over a president elects head for blessing, much like they do with ships before they set out to sea.
That being said, people that oppose presidents who adhere to a religion still have a say. In fact, their voice can be heard in the most boisterous way possible within a democracy, and this is by their vote. If the voting pool is really concerned about religion creeping into the white house, than may I suggest not voting for a candidate who subscribes to any particular religion. This would be the most effective way of expressing your opinion, and would not attempt to encroach upon the liberties or freedoms of those who endorse, within their lives, any religious creed.
So when Obama takes the oath, I say good for him, but him alone, for at that moment, it’s going to be personal in nature, and to forbid him from taking the oath, in the way he desires, would nullify the constitution to which he is swearing an everlasting allegiance.
No comments:
Post a Comment