« Iraqis Must Liberate Themselves | Main | Short Notes on World War IV »
January 7, 2005
The God Game, Part 1
bishop, a priest, and a peasant were in a great European cathedral. The bishop approached the alter rail, beat on his chest and declared, "I am nothing. I am nothing." Then the priest approached the alter rail, beat on his chest and declared, "I am nothing. I am nothing." The humble peasant was moved to imitate the bishop and the priest, so he approached the alter rail, beat on his chest and declared, "I am nothing. I am nothing."
The priest turned furiously and hissed into the priest's ear, "Who the hell does he think he is?"
It's good to recall that it's not necessary to believe in God in order to be a fundamentalist.
I think all too many Americans have forgotten just what was and is the purpose of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights: To define the limits of the Federal government and to protect citizens from its coercive power.
That's what distinguishes government from business: A business persuades us to use its goods and services, while a government coerces us to use its goods and services.
So when the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" the purpose is clearly to protect us from government's coercive power to restrict religious freedom or force a particular religion upon citizens.
Which leads us to the present conundrum: Is the forceable amputation of religious icons and discussions from government institutions, including public schools, a restriction of religious freedom and in effect a form of coercing an atheistic religion upon citizens?
I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Muslim. Nor Hindu, nor Buddhist, nor Frisbeetarian (one who believes that when you die, your Soul flies up to the roof and rests there for eternity.)
In general, I favor open public references to a "non-partisan" deity and discussion of God and religions in public schools. The spiritual life and the tradition of spiritual principles are a legitimate topic for public discussion. Indeed, I think that, whether a particular religion has the whole truth or not, a person who believes they are held divinely accountable for their actions in this life is more likely to restrain their baser impulses than a person who believes there is no such accountability, that Darwinian struggle is the norm.
So when the mere presence of the word "God" in public life becomes something to amputate (recall the Sacramento, California, man suing over the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Alliegiance or the Cupertino, California, school district bans the Declaration of Independence from classrooms for containing the word God), Housten, we have a problem.
Think about how widely the 1st Amendement freedom of speech is protected, how it insinuates itself into public and private life. Religious expression seems to be equally protected by the same Amendment. Yet that passage is increasingly interpreted as a reason to restrict religious expression to dark places and behind closed doors.
I don't want either the whacko right or the whacko left dictating what everyone should believe, whether it's one God or no God at all. Just shut up and let us say Merry Christmas, even if we're not Christians. And let us talk about religion and God in the schools without being coerced into a particular belief. Or non-belief.
*** I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant. H. L. Mencken
Go on to The God Game, Part 2.
--------
Posted by witnit at January 7, 2005 5:07 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.witnit.org/cgi-bin/mt-t071875.pl/856
