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.
January 17, 2009 at 3:18 pm |
I am looking forward to the day when we can learn to respect and live with the beliefs of others instead of protecting our own. Hopefully, someday we can rely on our trust in others to be what binds our society.
January 17, 2009 at 10:01 pm |
Our Founding Fathers considered religion important to the survival of our country. I suppose our Founders thought that religion was important to human salvation, but they did not write much about that as far as I have found. The DID write about the importance of people being guided by something other than the trends of the time.
Consider the Northwest Ordinance:
That ordinance, according the the U.S. Code, is one of our four foundational documents. It says, in part, “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged and established in the Northwest Territory.” So here we have an official governing document that said religion is necessary (and further said that our schools are partly responsible for educating folks about religion).
Several of our Founding Fathers said religion is important to the survival of our government. For example, James Madison said, “We’ve staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us….to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded.”
According to our Founders (and even to some of our state constitutions), we want people to invoke God because it points to a belief in a system of rewards and punishments beyond this mortal life. In other words, a politician might think he/she can get away with a certain action among the general public and courts, but there is at some point a judgement that can not be escaped. If one really believes in a Godly system, it might just affect how they “operate” and make them feel accountable to a power that does not rely on the nightly news for perspective on one’s actions. So if I promise to do something “so help me God,” maybe I’ll really mean it! Or at least, maybe there is a chance that my oath will sneak into my mind now and then and positively affect my decisions.
January 17, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
History Matters – Thanks for your comment. I understand where you’re coming from with that comment. You wrote that the Founding Fathers “did write about the importance of people being guided by something other than the trends of the time.”
I support this idea – however, it seems as if Christianity in our modern time has been guided by the trends of the time more than anything else; certainly more than the parables and sermons of Christ. It doesn’t matter if it is the Cold War or Homosexuality or Abortion – the Christian Right seems to have a new topical enemy quite frequently that is based on the trends of the time.
In addition, I think (from what you described) that the Founding Fathers are describing leadership from a “god” rather than “God” as we know it in the Judeo-Christian sense. This claim can also be backed due to many of the Founding Fathers belonging to Free Masonry, which requires(d) that members believe in “a supreme being” which is universally recognized as “God” in their meetings – be it Buddha or Allah or the Universe. Nothing in what you wrote claim it to be our Judeo-Christian God.
Either way, the separation of church and state is still there, still demanded, and yet still allowed to cross the line in instances of customs and traditions, for better or worse.
January 18, 2009 at 1:57 am |
I appreciate your thoughtfulness and evenhandedness.
One aspect of these separation-of-church-and-state issues that sometimes gets complicated is the need to distinguish between government and individual speech. Individuals of course are free to express and practice their religious views. The government, though, is constrained not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. When an individual acts in an official capacity on a government matter, he or she should conform to the First Amendment constraints on government. When an individual participates in an official event as an individual rather than a government agent, he or she presumably has the freedom to express religious views. Figuring out whether someone is acting in an official or private capacity can be complex.
In situations where we are clearly addressing government speech, though, a desire for evenhandedness should not lead us to equate statements that mention god(s) with those that do not. It has nothing whatever to do with anyone getting offended. The government simply has no business promoting religion–whether or not anyone would be offended.