In
a recent interview with Bill O'Reilly, David Silverman, President of the
American Atheists Group, said this:
"We're stopping the government from
preferring one religion over another."
Now, they were talking about
Atheism and Christmas and whether there's any reason for atheists to
"mess" with Christmas (Bill's terminology). O'Reilly took the
standpoint that Christmas is a philosophy rather than a religion, which we can
certainly debate at length, but that's not my aim here. Silverman insisted that
public "Christmas" trees, no mail delivery on holidays and business
closures are all examples of the government showing preference for one religion
over another. I must beg to differ. Let's look at the definition of
"religion" for starters:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature,
and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a
superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs."
Now, let's take a look at the definition of Atheism,
as defined by American Atheist's website
http://atheists.org/content/aims-and-principles:
"Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude
which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a
life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method,
independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds"
There
are two ways to look at these definitions and two debates that can ensue. The
first is whether the definitions match, at least enough to consider Atheism to
actually be a "religion." The second, is a debate of what it means
for the law and religious freedom if Atheism is in fact a "religion."
For the sake of my point in writing this entry, I am prepared to accept that
Atheism is a religion- I repeat, for argument's sake, I am assuming it to be
so.
The
Constitution prohibits LAWS "respecting the establishment of a religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I won't pretend to be an expert
on constitutional law, but reading that sentence, it tells me that the
government is meant to be left out of individuals' religious affairs. It also
tells me that no religion is to be legislated into our lives, and that all
persons are free to exercise their religious beliefs and traditions as they see
fit. I will even take it a step further and say that these ideas apply absolutely-
until they encroach upon another's life, liberty or property. Having said that,
I want to make a point about religious freedom that most progressives like to
keep suppressed. That point is, that of you are Jewish or Muslim or even
Atheist, and you feel left out or offended by a Christmas tree in a public
space, you have every right to feel that way, every right to advocate for and
put in place symbols of your own religion, but no right to take away another's
right to exercise their religious freedom.
So what does that mean? Let me explain with a few
examples:
If
there is a replica of the 10 commandments hanging up at your city hall, you
have the right to be offended, assuming there are no replicas of artifacts from
other religious histories. However, you also have the right to request that
your own religion be represented as well. If you are denied, THEN you have a
case of preference of one religion over another. People should not have the
right to demand a certain religion not be represented in a public forum. At the
same time, they should not be denied representation for their own religion.
It's all or nothing. All religions should be free to request to have their own
symbols on display in a situation like this, none should be excluded. Only if a
certain religion is specifically and deliberately left out is there an issue.
If
someone wants to say a prayer in a public place, it is neither unconstitutional
nor offensive for it to be allowed to occur. It is an exercise of religious
freedom to pray and invite others to join you. Problems arise when and if
people are forced to participate against their will. Even if you're talking
about a prayer during an assembly at school or before conducting business in
the legislature, it's still acceptable, as long as people have the option not
to participate. You can't make people bow their heads or say the words, but no
one should be ridiculed or punished for praying either. If people want to be
offended, oh well. There is nothing in the constitution that says Americans
have a right to never have to be offended by things and people around them. No
functional society can survive under that kind of law, and that's why it is not
the law of our land that no one is allowed to say and do things that arbitrarily
offend others. Deliberately offending someone is a different matter, and we do
have laws for those situations.
Let's
say there is a Christmas tree up in a school. There are 1000 students and
teachers in that building of varying religions, including Atheists. The
non-Christians have no reason to be offended,...yet. If a Jewish student wants
to display a menorah, that is perfectly acceptable. If a Muslim, Buddhist or
Atheist wants a display of their own symbols and traditions, that is also
perfectly acceptable. Now, if the school refuses the requests of these
students, THEN we have an issue. We have one religion getting preference over
others, which is wrong, though technically still constitutional.
What the-? How is that even close to constitutional?
Let me explain...
Again,
I'm not a Constitutional law professor (although I can think of at least one
that seems to know less about it than I do...). However, the Constitution says,
"Congress shall make no law...". That means Congress can't make laws
that establish a religion to be followed or prohibiting people from freely
exercising their religious traditions. State constitutions vary, but as far as
the US constitution goes, as long as Congress doesn't legislate religious
preferences, it's technically constitutional. We all know that it's still
innately wrong to discriminate against individuals' religious expressions or
beliefs, or to give preference to one religion over another. That's what people
get upset about. Then they cite the constitution because someone told them to.
The entire debate of religious freedom in this country has become distorted to
the point that we don't even know what religious freedom means anymore. We get
so wrapped up in demanding Christian symbols and traditions and even words be
kept out of public spaces, we forget that everyone, everywhere in America has
the right to worship and display their religious beliefs as they see fit. We
also have a right to be offended by things as we see fit. However, in no way is
it acceptable to deny anyone- be it an individual, a group, or a town- the
ability to freely engage in their religious beliefs and practices based on that
fact that some people are offended that it is not reflective of their own
religion. If we based all of our laws and ordinances on whether people are
offended as we do with regulating religious symbols, no one would be able to even
go outside. The bottom line here is that people have an automated response to
religious symbols, specifically Christian symbols, in public spaces. That
reaction is backed by flawed reasoning and followed by incorrect action. We
shouldn't be ripping out references to religion because they are Christian or
Muslim or what have you. Instead, those who feel left out or offended should
just seek to have their own religion represented or displayed. When we remove
religious symbols because they "offend," we are doing EXACTLY what we
are supposedly standing in opposition to- giving preference to one or more
religions over another. If you are mad about the nativity scene, put your own
symbol on display. If you feel left out by the Christmas tree, get a menorah to
put beside it. If you are offended that the 10 commandments are hanging on the
wall, get a Koran to be put on display as well. That should be the course of
action. Excluding every religion is directly counterproductive to the American
principles of tolerance and inclusion of all religions. Be proud of your own
religion, instead of being offended by others.
Now
we come to my favorite part. Remember how I accepted for argument's sake that
atheism is a religion? Here is why that distinction is important to this
debate. Take a look at these tenants of the American Atheists Group, again
found on their website:
•To advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful
ways the complete and absolute separation of state and church;
•To advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful
ways the establishment and maintenance of a thoroughly secular system of
education available to all
What this says to me, is that they want a complete
wall between church and government, AND they want schools to be completely
secular. That is 100% hypocritical. Why? Here are two definitions of
"secular":
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things
that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion
Now,
the stated goals of the American Atheists Group are directly counter to David Silverman's
statement on The O'Reilly Factor. He said his organization aims to keep the
government from showing preference to one religion over another. That can't be
true, because their own goals say they want no religion mixing with government,
and no religion taught in schools. That's not a defense of their own
"religion." It's actively perpetuating the elimination of all
religion from the public view. I'll play my "be proud of your religion
instead of offended by others" card yet again guys.
So we've got two ways of looking at the American
Atheist Group's stance on religion in public spaces, schools, etc:
1. Atheism is a religion and deserves fair treatment
as such. No other religion should be given preference over Atheism. At the same
time, Atheism should be given no preference over any other religion.
2. Atheism is the absence of any religion and
deserves to be treated as such. Atheists should not be given preference over
any religion, or the free exercise thereof. At the same time, no one should be
ridiculed or punished for being an Atheist.
If
you take the first outlook, then we have a problem, because removing Christian
symbols instead of also displaying Atheist symbols, is in fact giving
preference to one religion over another.
If
you take the second stance, then we have a problem, because allowing a sect of
the population to, which does not engage in any religion, to dictate when and
where those who do participate in a religion can do so, is absolutely wrong.
Again, technically constitutional (unless state constitutions say otherwise),
but still innately wrong as I have already stated.
It's
simple folks: the focus of the public religious debate needs to change, and
people like David Silverman and his organization need to be honest about their
beliefs and intentions. Religious symbols should not be removed from government
buildings, schools or other public places. They should be embraced by all as a
reminder of the religious freedom we have as Americans. Anyone should be
allowed to display religious symbols as they see fit. If people get offended they
can get over it. This is America and we have the right to engage in religious
expression so long as it does not trample the rights of others. If Atheists
want to claim Atheism as a religion, then they don't get to tell those of other
religions to put their traditions away. And if they want to be secular, then
they need to accept that we are a nation of religious freedom that was founded
on rights that come from nature. And nature's God. David Silverman is either
very confused or very deceitful when it comes to his organization's aims and
its status as a religious or secular entity. If you don't believe in God that's
your right. But you don't get to eradicate religion from American life just
because you disagree with it. Religious freedom was the reason the pilgrims
came here, and it is our first right as stated in the constitution. Either
accept it or don't. Be offended or don't. I don't care either way. Just stop
trying to destroy religious freedom for the rest of us. I don't care what your
beliefs are, but I do care about the impact your actions have on my religious
freedom. Americans' attitudes toward religion are becoming more distorted every
day. That needs to change. We need to get back to the understanding that we are
ALL free to express our religious beliefs and traditions. Don't get angry
folks. Participate in your own way. Take advantage of your own rights instead
of attacking others. We should hold this idea in our personal lives, and we
should legislate with this sentiment in mind as well: encourage the free
exercise of all religions in all places, rather than forbidding all religion in
all places. That's the American solution.
Stay Conservative and Keep Looking to the Future
No comments:
Post a Comment