Atheists vs. Inauguration: Who Is Right?

I found this article from The Orange County Register to be quite amusing. Apparently, as the article summarizes, a group of atheists are suing Saddleback’s founding pastor Rick Warren in order to block him from referring to God at the inauguration of President-Elect Barrack Obama. A couple of things that make this interesting:

1) From what I’ve studied, individual atheists heavily dislike being identified by a singular agenda. I will fault to referring to atheists as a class of people in this short article, since we are clearly discussing a group of (relatively) similar people (atheists) against another group of (relatively) similar people (Christians). Nonetheless, just as atheists do not believe in God, they do not believe in organized beliefs of relatively any kind. I do not believe that atheists as a whole are being hypocritical here, just the 11 or so atheists who are apart of this lawsuit. The very fact that these individuals have united under a common agenda or belief (that God should not be mentioned) goes against the very foundations of what they are supposed to stand for. Of course, it’s hard not to label a group who are united by their lack of unity, but that’s the seemingly obvious problem for those atheists whom subscribe to that theory. 

2) I will readily admit that I believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state. On a fundamental level, I passively disagree with any marriage of the two. In my mind, nothing would be scarier for myself or this country than a president who runs things according to his own (naturally) interpretation of faith. I would much more readily vote for a moral atheist for president who looks at things concretely and subjectively than an evangelical Christian who promises to do everything by the Word of God (think: Bush). 

That rant aside, I do readily agree that mentioning God in an inauguration speech deeply insults and infringes on the rights of atheists in this country. Conversely, I also agree that not mentioning God deeply insults and infringes on the rights of Christians in this country. While the atheists argue separation of church and state, Christians argue tradition. Both, in this case, are valid arguments. If you don’t believe “tradition” to be a valid argument, just wait until the atheists play that trump card if religion is suddenly introduced to a government ceremony where it was previously absent. 

In essence, the second portion of my rant is that atheists are wanting to embrace the same right that they currently are angry at the Christians for having. This is just another example of both sides hating on the other for completely hypocritical reasons. If a person was trying to truly embrace the “correct” and “moral” sides of this continual argument, you would be stuck in the middle as both have glazed over the rights of the others in order to advance their own agenda. In actuality, it’s just sickening. 

My opinion? There’s no such thing as “equal rights” in this country. Atheists are never going to have equal rights to Christians, and vice versa. If the scales were ever tipped in the “favor” of the atheists, they would be embracing the same rights that they claim are unfair for others to have. So who is right? Neither side; they are both wrong. Obviously, with the inauguration looming, tradition will hold. Does it suck for atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and other American citizens whom do not participate in one of the three monotheistic faiths? Completely – and it is unfair to them. However, these citizens also need to realize they live in a global community – and “tolerance” is a concept that seems to be forgotten on both sides. If we ever become advanced enough in this country to consider a non-Judeo-Christian president, and then that president is forced to swear on a book he/she doesn’t believe in (The Bible) then that is when the argument against God and the Bible will have a foothold, and that is when the practice will cross the line from tolerance and custom to strong-armed majority rule and wrongful enforcement.

Rick Sanchez vs. Joe the Plumber

I have a new and profound respect for CNN’s Rick Sanchez. Once again citing the  non-thinking American’s political hack Joe the Plumber, and his recent comments in Israel where he lashed out at the media, this happened: 

How to Use the Restroom in Jerusalem

Working late tonight at 1:30am, I wanted a smoke but was out. So I headed on out to my local Chevron. The guy in front of me in line was chatting, rather knowledgeably, about the Hebrew language with the cashier. As I was buying my smokes, I continued the conversation with the cashier on the Hebrew language – he has studied it quite a bit through his Bible study, and we got to speaking about the old and new versions of the language. I told him about my time in Israel nearly three years ago and relayed a rather humorous language story that happened to me in Jerusalem. 

David, Jamie, and myself were having lunch with Jamie’s friend Sean (from Phoenix but living in Jerusalem at the time) in the newer portion of Jerusalem, off of the trendy Ben Yehuda Street. I had to use the restroom and couldn’t find it in the two-story half-bookstore half-cafe restaurant. I ran into a waiter whom didn’t speak English. Using the little Hebrew I knew at the time, I asked in Hebrew if he could point the way to the restroom. Problem is, I confused the word “sharoutime” (restroom, roughly translated) with the word “sharoute” (taxi), and basically asked the waiter: “Excuse me, sir, where is your taxi so I can urinate?”

He was confused. 

I view this experience as having been of great value, forever setting the two similiar words apart in my mind. Otherwise, this blog may have ended up being titled “Place to Urinate” in Hebrew.

Hostel Response Revisited

On July 7, 2005, I woke up at Mike Skon’s Rancho Santa Margarita apartment. It was meant to be a final day of fun in Orange County immediately after returning from my solo Pacific Northwest road trip. Instead, while making myself breakfast, I turned on CNN and saw the London bombings on television. I wrote a blog about it that morning, using a recent scenario as an example of peace. Not three days before, on Independence Day, I had been at Hosteling International’s Fort Mason location. Originally in the room were myself, a Londoner named Simon, and a Japanese backpacker named Mark. The three of us that day met (on seperate occassions) two new members of our shared dorm room, Sammy and Hazib. Sammy was from Israel; Hazib was from Palastine. 

The three of us became concerned about what might happen that night when they meet in our dorm room. None of us knew what to expect; they each seemed pretty passionate about their backgrounds. After watching the fireworks from over the Bay and all of us consuming our fair share of beer and cheap wine, we eventually all sat down and had a large group discussion until 3am. Sammy and Hazib hated each other at first; the next day, they went out in the city as two friends to explore San Francsico. I wrote the following that day, and I think it is still applicable for the horrible war going on right now between Israel and Palastine. It’s my personal belief that hosteling should be a mandatory part of growing up for all humans:

“There is no room for hate in the hosteling culture, and that is one of the goals of hosteling: for young people from different and often opposing countries to come together and sit and talk and find peace, with the goal that the same thng can happen on a larger scale someday. Utopian, yes. Simplistic, perhaps at times. But when you see hate expressed on such violent levels from both the “good” and “bad” sides, you can’t help but think that some problems could be solved by community, by friendship, by taking the time to sit and talk, have a beer, and understand your fellow human being.”