 |
Current mood:  argumentative Category: News and Politics
I'm going to put aside for a moment the fact that I'm not exactly the biggest patriot around to talk about the First Amendment for a moment.
Here is what it reads in full:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I put in bold the claus specifically about religion because that's what I want to focus on.
It's pretty straightforward, Congress has absolutely nothing to say for or against religious practice. It can't support or suppress religious practice through law-making, and since the only Congress is the body of government that writes laws in this country that pretty much means that government itself has nothing to say in the matter.
So, let's take for example a case where a public (i.e. a government funded) school has a picture of Jesus hanging on the wall where everyone can see it. In a recent case there was such a school and the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State worked together to force the school to take down this picture on grounds that it violated the First Amendment. Now this makes sense to me, because such a picture of Jesus hanging in the school does seem like the advocacy of Christianity, and since the school is an arm of the State it can easily be interpreted as a State-endorsed approval of a religion.
However many people are outraged that anyone try and force this school to take down the picture, claiming that it doesn't violate the First Amendment. In fact they are claiming that it's an attack against the Christian Faith to take this image down. Really? I mean really?
Okay, yes traditional Christians largely accept iconic depictions of Christ and use them devotionally, this issue was settled in the 8th century at the Second Council of Nicea which convened to settle the Iconoclast Controversy at the time. So Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants consider that issue, for themselves, settled. However, and this is important, there are plenty of Christians and Christian denominations which consider iconography offensive, what about these Christians? Is it right for the State through its schools to offend the conscience of these iconoclastic Christians? How about Muslims? Muslims, who view Jesus as one of God's chief prophets, consider images (of any sort) to be offensive; not just images of Muhammed, but images of ANY of God's prophets, are forbidden in Islam.
How are Jewish students at this school supposed to feel? Some Jews may hold a [semi-]high position of Jesus (though by generally disregarding any traditional Christian understanding of Him) as a good Jewish rabbi who got misunderstood through the pages of history; but most Jews, the vast majority of Jews, are simply going to be reminded of how Christians have, through the strong arm of the State, suppressed, repressed, persecuted, killed, tortured and caused unfathomable amounts of pain to Jews over the centuries. Is it at all okay to make any Jewish students feel like outcasts here? Like they don't really belong because with an image of Jesus hanging on the wall, as far as they are concerned, they are being treated like aliens in a hostile environment where the adovcacy of a foreign god is being promoted. If you think I'm exagerating on this, try having an open and honest discussion on this matter with some Jewish people, talk to a rabbi, ask him or her about this.
How about atheists, agnostics, Pagans, Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or anyone else. How do THEY feel about things like this?
You may interject, "But the First Amendment isn't about protecting people's sensibilities." That's true, but when you forcibly cut off people through, whether intentional or unintentional, advocacy and support of one religious opinion or not, you are essentially treating "the others" as outcasts, as undesirables, as unwanted, as not really full participants.
This is why the government is supposed to be neutral on matters of religion. This is not an attack on Christianity, and I say that as a devout Christian, this is about reminding people that the First Amendment exists to secure the freedom of the citizenry to protect them from the State. That's right, when the government stays completely out of the affairs of religious life it means you are being protected, whether you practice the majority religion, a minority religion, or no religion at all. It's protecting you from interferance from government control, manipulation and the like.
Do you really want the government to step in to help you in supporting your own religion for yourself, exactly how would you feel--indeed how WILL you feel--if or when the government suddently dictates how YOU should practice your religion?
Stop listening to Religious Right propaganda machine and think about this stuff. Trust me, if you're a Christian and you suddenly find yourself not agreeing with Pat Robertson, that's okay, you're not rejecting the Faith. I know! Amazing huh?
-Jon
5:45 PM
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|