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.
As a (Expletive)ian I feel conflicted about this, but I just have to say, thank goodness (Expletive)mas is over. Year after year and without fail, the PC police come out anew in their feverish, hysterical holiday romp. Thus, the yearly war against (Expletive)mas begins anew, and a time that is supposed to be designated for joy, celebration, gift giving, and philanthropy, is again marred by verbal mudslinging and the constant bickering amongst those with differing world views.
Luckily, living in Washington State gives me the opportunity to have a front row seat to this insanity. In 2007, Sea-Tac airport opted to take down (Expletive)mas trees after a Rabbi, who later did some brilliant back peddling, uttered some legal threats to those running the airport. This year, it was in Olympia among the cozy confines of the legislative building, where the Governor (Expletive)ine Gregoire deemed it appropriate to allow a sign to be placed next to a nativity scene by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Now, the message of the Enlightenment movement is a mystery to no one, though now it goes by "the progressive movement", and lets be honest here, neither the (Expletive)mas display, nor the atheist sign is going to convert anyone to one side or another. No, the atheist sign just serves as a distraction to those celebrating (Expletive)mas. Yet, perhaps this was their goal to begin with and if it was, they definitely succeeded. It won’t convince anyone though. I mean as far as signs go I found it a little lacking. I mean, not even ONE of the three Humanist Manifestos? Come on, I mean if I were an atheist I would have put something like this on the poster: (the Vitruvian Man included of course)
“There is no God. There is, in fact, nothing besides the physical cosmos that science investigates. Human beings, since they are a part of this cosmos, are physical things and therefore do not survive death. Human beings are, in fact, animals among other animals and differ from other animals only in being more complex. Like other animals, they are a product of uncaring and unconscious physical processes that did not have them, or anything else, in mind. There is, therefore, nothing external to humanity that is capable of conferring meaning or purpose on human existence. In the end, the only evil is pain and the only good is pleasure. The only purpose of morality and politics is the minimization of pain and the maximization of pleasure. Human beings, however, have an unfortunate tendency to wish to deny these facts and to believe comforting myths according to which they have an eternal purpose. This irrational component in the psyches of most human beings encourages the confidence game called religion. Religions invent complicated and arbitrary moral codes and fantastic future rewards and punishments in order to consolidate their own power. Fortunately, they are gradually but steadily being exposed as frauds by the progress of science, and they will gradually disappear through the agency of scientific education and enlightened journalism.” –Peter van Inwagen
Much more enlightening and progressive. Didn’t need to include that, but figured I would so I don’t get a court summons or get served papers informing me of some pending litigation. At any rate, end of story? Oh no my friends, not in Washington state, by no means! Enter a juvenile who then steals the sign and throws it into a gutter somewhere and it eventually ends up at a local radio station. Great job! Now they get to justly post a bible verse of “Thou shall not steal” on the poster. Thanks there sport! How about next time you try not to get a point across by breaking the law and giving them the FFRF more fodder for mockery? Whoever you are…? Now enter the Reverend Ken Hutcherson who got into the spirit of the season by wanting to put up his own sign reading, “There is one God. There is one Devil. There are angels, a heaven and hell. There is more than our natural world. Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” Clever. Of course he revealed this while also declaring the original version to news cameras, which was, “Hey, I believe in (Expletive) (Expletive) and if you don’t, that’s OK because you’re going to fry like a Jimmy Dean pure pork sausage on Judgment Day.” *Sniff* Oh yes, God bless us one and all! Wonderful, this is EXACTLY who I want speaking for me in front of news cameras! He may score an endorsement deal out of the statement, who knows, but it leaves me wondering if he got ordained a minister off the internet or through snail mail.
More requests to put up signs started coming out of the wood work, yet the governor had enough and denied any other displays to be put up. So the question remains, did she make the right call to allow the sign to be put up? In my humble and biased opinion the answer is no. There is one fundamental reason why she didn’t make the right judgment on this one and it is that the sign is simply an attack or retort in response to (Expletive)ianity. The sign, though it contains the phrase “The Winter Solstice” is not celebrating anything, while the (Expletive)mas display is. This fact alone makes it inappropriate, but I need to give the Governor the benefit of the doubt and say she was probably just trying to be PC with the whole thing. Furthermore, it should be mentioned that both the sign and co-founder of the FFRF Dan Barker refer to “The Winter Solstice.” As Barker told CNN, “People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before (Expletive)mas. We see (Expletive)ianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans." Concerning the historical facts he is right, but what he fails to mention is that these winter solstice festivals had a large spiritual significance to many different cultures and religious sects. It was a religious ceremony to many people. Among these were the Druids, who celebrated the rather malevolent god Odin’s rise to power, for it was he who ruled over the winter months riding across the sky on his eight-legged horse. Along with the fact he implies that (Expletive)ians aren’t human, it becomes clear that they really don’t care about the solstice celebration whatsoever, but their motives are to attack (Expletive)ianity.
The backlash due to the sign resonated loudly within the media, blogs, gossip and message boards, but its not really surprising. With the now oppressive PC movement and the ACLU out in full force, it was bound to happen and it is a lesson the PC police need to understand. Protecting different viewpoints and people's rights is a goal worth fighting for to be sure, but it also requires a balance at the same time. If it is not balanced then it will only serve to entice even more animosity among all types of social parties. Let’s face it, there are excesses in the PC movement and it is trying to encompass all those people who have unreasonable and immoderate sensibilities(you have probably met some like this, if not you probably are one of these people and probably shouldn't be reading my blog), which in turn actually hinders the very same rights of which they claim to be protectors of. It seems counterproductive to advocate some cause, yet contradict it at the same time.
Now don’t get me wrong, if you don’t celebrate (Expletive)mas and want to recognize the winter solstice, Festivus or whatever, that is your privilege and I respect that. However it does not mean you have the liberty to trash on someone else’s rights and the fact remains that people do have a right to celebrate the birth of (Expletive). Yet, despite the drama, for the most part I find that the vast majority of people really don’t care and are worried about much bigger issues than what kind of seasonal greeting they get from the checkout girl at Wal-Mart, or if they are properly represented amongst the decor in the food court at the mall. Still, others ignore what the PC police say and will even take matters into their own hands, as with the Sea-Tac example mentioned earlier. After (Expletive)mas trees were taken down, the employees brought in their own (Expletive)mas trees and decorated the terminal themselves.
Civil and honest debate is a good thing and an exchange of ideas is something I fully encourage, but where there is a lack of civility or respect, as in this sign, one has to question the motives of those who are engaged in the argument or discourse. Usually, the venue of where this conversation happens doesn’t really matter, but if parties are seeking to erect tall walls of anger or disruption with their theology or philosophy rather than building bridges of friendship and mutual respect, then the means and surroundings in which the discussion takes place does become a relevant element. Authorities are able to use discretion in such matters without violating 1st amendment rights of free speech and again I think the Governor made the wrong decision, but she didn’t break the law so was therefore in her rights to decide how she did. Much as I hate to admit.
The conflict between law and ethics appears to be an underlying upshot to this particular issue. Frequently, we tend to think that law and ethics are completely aligned and compliment each other perfectly, but in reality this is often not the case. Rather, law and ethics frequently butt heads, for what is unethical, isn’t always illegal. I don’t mean ethical in terms of morality, but rather in terms of sound judgment (that would be a great name for an 80’s hair cover band wouldn't it? Sound Judgment…hmmm).
For example, in Panama(a great 80’s song) City, Florida, Tonia Thomas was allegedly fired because she greeted callers at her work with “merry (Expletive)mas” and refused her bosses request that she say “happy holidays” instead. I think her boss is a jerk, for it is a rather petty and silly thing to fire someone over, but that doesn’t mean he broke the law in firing her. A pretty reasonable case could be made for viewpoint or religious discrimination if it weren’t for a couple things. First, is the fact that she wasn’t fired for being a (Expletive)ian, but because she was insubordinate to her employers demands. More over, the term “happy holidays” is a neutral, comprehensive term that by no means ostracizes the (Expletive)ian faith. Neutrality often disarms any claims of discrimination. Now I am no scholar of the law, but for these reasons I feel she doesn’t have a case and will lose in court.
So, hypothetically, could the Freedom From Religion Foundation sue the state of Washington for viewpoint discrimination if Governor (Expletive)ine Gregoire had denied them? The ACLU might say yes, but I don’t think so. There is too much out of sync between both positions for it to be a viewpoint discrimination case. For one, the scope of focus is a prominent religious figure and the celebration of His birth the motive for creating the display, while with the other, it is the practitioners who are reviled and responded to with nothing being celebrated at all. Context is very important in viewpoint discrimination cases and the context in this instance wouldn't be enough for a victorious verdict.
Washington isn’t the only place almost hilarious buzz kills are manifest. Not at all. For instance, in Frederick, Maryland, Harvey Atler, a community leader and member of a neighborhood homeowners association has demanded that residence celebrate (Expletive)mas “quietly” and called for a couple of the residents to tear down their (Expletive)mas lights and decorations of Santa and Snoopy.
Pittsburgh, Mass. tried to get rid of (Expletive)mas when they demanded that everyone begin to refer to december as “Sparkle Season,” or (Expletive)mas as “Sparkle Day.” Just another holiday treat perfect enough to be included in the American Civil Liberties Union’s stocking. They must have been sad when social outcry was enough to drive it from the public lexicon.
Schools are the place where (Expletive)mas is most under attack, from Kentucky where bus drivers were threatened with disciplinary action if they didn’t greet students with “ho, ho, ho” instead of “merry (Expletive)mas,” to New Jersey, where a high school student got in trouble for singing “God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen” on school property. Santa is under attack as well and is discouraged, for his image may apparently somehow affect kids by mystically implanting the knowledge of the real fourth-century bishop, St. Nicholas. Though with the problems we have been having with bishops nowadays, perhaps its not a bad idea.
Holidays denote an ideal and are often in conjunction with important events of historical or personal significance to those who observe the holiday as it was initially intended. To be ignorant of these facts serves no benefit and it is unrealistic to think that one can erase a holiday and its importance to so many people, by trying to smother it. Sometimes those who claim to stand for tolerance are really the most intolerant and several of the before mentioned examples attest to that. I think it is best summed up by columnist John Leo, when he said, “You wouldn’t want people to go around thinking that a (Expletive)ian holy day is somehow associated with the (Expletive)ian religion.” The simple fact remains, so many of us like our rights to be protected, but only when it benefits us and adheres to our own personal belief structure. Never mind that these very same rights protect us ourselves and if we strive so hard to silence the rights of others, we may just find out that the rights we have destroyed are our very own.
With that I conclude my overly abundant airing of grievances and hope everyone had a very Merry Christmas! Awwww…snap! ;-)
