In Sonoma County California, an Atheist sued the county and demanded the removal of an angel on the Christmas tree they had displayed. The angel "offended" him and he said it was a symbol of the "Cult of Christianity". The use of the word "cult" offends me deeply because cults have weird, fraudulent leaders. So what's that make Jesus? Oh now don't be offended. The atheist is a liberal! As such, he cannot be accused of intolerance or bigotry, (or even smug condescension.) That's because when liberals say things that offend, it's their right to "free speech". When conservatives express opinions that offend, it's "hate speech." Got it?
Alright, so what the hell is going on? (Pardon the pun). While the Constitution says Congress (i.e., the Federal government) cannot establish a religion, does any reasonable person think that placing an angel on a tree, is akin to the government establishing a religion? This isn't just silly. It's hypocritical. It's an example of the left wing doing what they accuse the religious right of doing, which is shoving their views down our throats. The secularists whine and express so much fear about governmental establishment of religion, while ignoring the fact that it is they who force others to tow the line. And they ignore the rest of the freedom of religion amendment. Congress cannot infringe on the free expression of religion either. What about that part of the constitution?
I am offended by the removal of the angel, and all the other politically correct denials of my faith. I have Jewish friends who feel the same. So this is not about my religion versus another. It's about secularists denying the rest of us our right to practice or express any religious beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in some sort of supreme being we want to be free to worship. While we in the theists group may not agree on how to get to heaven, we surely want to be able to discuss heaven's existence. With these types of lawsuits, the secularists are infringing upon our freedom of religion. Think about it.
It's not religious groups who are suing to demand some other faith tear their symbol down. It isn't a religious group telling atheists they have to attend church. It isn't religious groups demanding yet another day in court to shut down someone else talking, or that their view be given air time and allowed to rule, it's the left wing secularists who have used the courts to make their views of humanism the unofficial "religion" of America by silencing other's. It's not creationism versus evolution. It's tossing ornamental angels out of trees. Instead of saying "The US has many faiths with their own routes to heaven & God", we are told not to discuss heaven or God at all, if we are anywhere a government office sits or a city hall exists, or town square rests, because it's "government property". (Gee, I thought that meant the citizens owned it and I thought we had the right to assemble and the right to religious freedom)...So the only group truly allowed to express itself is the group denying all other's views and now mocking our views. The religious right is acting in self defense! They just want to be able to worship as they please and now, if one atheist lives in a town of 1000 Jews, or 1000 Christians, there will be no symbol of Christmas or Hanukkah allowed. So tell me, does that sound like religious freedom and tolerance to you? Doesn't it sound more like Communist Russia in the not so distant past?
Some will make the slippery slope argument ("But Jeannine, we can't have an angel on a tree...because that could lead to people thinking some of us believe in angels, and, well, where do you draw the line?")
First, the slippery slope argument has undermined more good ideas than any other this century. It tries to force us into extreme positions, and this is a great example of it being used to stop common sense and prevent a healthy boundary from being drawn. People are losing all sense of proportion.
Second, let's take the slippery slope argument and go in the direction they're steering us in, by taking their way for now. The complainant, said to be one single person, said the angel offended him and he called Christianity a "cult". Come on, let's call his comments what they are, religious bigotry and intolerance. His words are insulting almost to the point of being hate speech, and he's totally intolerant of religion, plain and simple.
If an angel on a tree is the equivalent of the Federal government "establishing" a national religion, then buckle up and ride the humanist train the rest of the way. Take all the symbols, be they crosses, Stars of David, the crescent of Islam, and remove each and every one from every fallen soldier in every national or state cemetery.
Go up to Arlington National Cemetery and tear all those crosses/stars and all religious symbols down. Well, as a veteran, I want to tell the atheist in Sonoma County, "Sir, you offend me". How dare you deny a fallen soldier his/her right to their faith's comfort at death? How dare you deny that small act to those of us willing to die - for you and your freedom to not believe in anything.
Oh, and better not let those dying soldiers get their last rites either. After all, it's taxpayer dollars paying those chaplains! We wouldn't want Congress establishing a religion by giving the dying soldiers any comfort from their faith. Take all the monuments down if they have signs of an afterlife, or a hopeful approach or sense of purpose...better to have no faith than one that might spread. Folks, hold onto your freedoms because lately the pieces that are being hacked away are getting big and our rights are eroding. I don't know what'll take for the various peoples in our land to notice this, but I think it's happening. Many groups are now allying themselves with each other with just one commonality; the desire to be left alone..live and let live.
Those of faith in America, any faith, are being forced into silence by secular humanists who claim fears of persecution. But it is those people, who are doing the persecuting. Most people of faith make no demands of others, or of the government. They simply wanted to express their faith and allow it to be recognized...This lawsuit is an example of the extreme intolerance of some on the left. To them I say, "I will never force my faith onto you you, I'll even die for your right to believe or not believe, as you see fit. But I won't be silenced about my beliefs either". On that note, MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HANUKKAH!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The trick is to know that they are wrong but NOT to get offended by it as ultimately we are all one. I believe that the proper Constitutional thing to do is allow any expression of religion and to ban none. To promote one over another was not what the founders envisioned but to ban any is also not what they were thinking in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas
brother Martin
I hear you bro. And though I feel more sorrow for the Sonoma atheist, than anger, I do feel enough is enough. Originally the states had religions --as Pennsylvania was Quaker, Georgia was Baptist, etc. It was the FEDERAL gov that was never to establish or infringe upon, any religious beliefs. I'm fine with the bill of rights applying that to states too, but I am not fine with having to pretend we're celebrating the solstice.
ReplyDeleteAnd take note, it was ONE atheist "offended" by an angel on a tree. Never mind that perhaps all the rest of the citizens wanted that angel...sometimes the rights of the minority (or a single person), simply should not outweigh the majority's. No one was making him do anything. No one was depriving that individual atheist his right to disbelieve, or any fundamental right of his; his right to due process, life, liberty or property. On the contrary, it was he who insisted that a symbol which was meaningful to us, and by implication not meaningful to him, be removed. It was the majority who lost something and gave in, again, to yet another petty tyrant.