Sunday, November 28, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sunday religion report--FFRF doesn't mind sharing the Christmas season with believers!
The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), an organization apparently formed to confirm Bill O'Reilly's worst suspicions about the left vs. religion, has told the press, “We nonbelievers don’t mind sharing the season with Christians." That is so very, very big of them. I'd even say "very Christian," but we won't go there.
Granted, they (the FFRF) said this back in December of 2008, but I'm assuming their generous season-sharing offer still stands. Can we take this to mean that, once every year at Line-Material-mas, these fearless activists--all of them way smarter and way better versed in logic and reason than we average morons--take a temporary break from filing lawsuits against public religious displays, carols in public schools, nursing home residents being forced to sing Amazing Grace during lobby and lunch hall meetings, and similar atrocities? No, probably not. It likely merely means they have no intention of ever suing the holiday itself. Astonishing, really, given the group's sheer, robotic hatred of religion, memorably expressed in stilted secularist English on a well-known FFRF sign: "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
Our founders obviously agreed. Why else would they have gone to such trouble to nurture the growth of this mind- and heart-hardening institution within our democracy? The FFRF, again: "Our Constitution was very purposefully written to be a godless document, whose only references to religion are exclusionary." Ah, yes. Nothing excludes religion from a democracy more effectively than promoting its plurality.
Of course, we can expect such brilliance from a group whose list of broadly-grinning honorary officers includes intellectual heavyweights like Ron Reagan, Julia Sweeney, and celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins.
Freedom from religion is typically described by cyber-secularists as the flip side of freedom of religion, and this may be my favorite disconnect of the lot. Think about it--we're talking a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment (plus the no-religious-test clause) in addition to four other freedoms, including f. of speech and the press. What is the opposite/flip side of a guaranteed freedom? The absence of that freedom, of course--as any smart fourth-grader should be able to deduce. Maybe the FFRF should hire some of those.
And if freedom from religion is somehow implied by freedom of..., then does our Constitution also guarantee freedom from the press? And freedom from speech?
Now, I don't know that the FFRF or similar outfits ultimately have the power to do much harm to religion--after all, Americans aren't going to chuck their faith because a cadre of media-bright, lawsuit-happy blowhards insist on misreading the establishment clause as a gag order on faith. And our democracy, while virtually defenseless against greed, isn't nearly as easily taken down by stupidity. (Otherwise, it would have expired ages ago.) But such slow learners shouldn't be allowed to present themselves as the voice of reason, liberalism, and so on, and a smarter media would be lampooning such individuals, not shilling for their cause. The FFRF members are entitled to see themselves as keepers of our Constitution, but no one else is required to tip-toe around that delusion.
Granted, they (the FFRF) said this back in December of 2008, but I'm assuming their generous season-sharing offer still stands. Can we take this to mean that, once every year at Line-Material-mas, these fearless activists--all of them way smarter and way better versed in logic and reason than we average morons--take a temporary break from filing lawsuits against public religious displays, carols in public schools, nursing home residents being forced to sing Amazing Grace during lobby and lunch hall meetings, and similar atrocities? No, probably not. It likely merely means they have no intention of ever suing the holiday itself. Astonishing, really, given the group's sheer, robotic hatred of religion, memorably expressed in stilted secularist English on a well-known FFRF sign: "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
Our founders obviously agreed. Why else would they have gone to such trouble to nurture the growth of this mind- and heart-hardening institution within our democracy? The FFRF, again: "Our Constitution was very purposefully written to be a godless document, whose only references to religion are exclusionary." Ah, yes. Nothing excludes religion from a democracy more effectively than promoting its plurality.
Of course, we can expect such brilliance from a group whose list of broadly-grinning honorary officers includes intellectual heavyweights like Ron Reagan, Julia Sweeney, and celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins.
Freedom from religion is typically described by cyber-secularists as the flip side of freedom of religion, and this may be my favorite disconnect of the lot. Think about it--we're talking a freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment (plus the no-religious-test clause) in addition to four other freedoms, including f. of speech and the press. What is the opposite/flip side of a guaranteed freedom? The absence of that freedom, of course--as any smart fourth-grader should be able to deduce. Maybe the FFRF should hire some of those.
And if freedom from religion is somehow implied by freedom of..., then does our Constitution also guarantee freedom from the press? And freedom from speech?
Now, I don't know that the FFRF or similar outfits ultimately have the power to do much harm to religion--after all, Americans aren't going to chuck their faith because a cadre of media-bright, lawsuit-happy blowhards insist on misreading the establishment clause as a gag order on faith. And our democracy, while virtually defenseless against greed, isn't nearly as easily taken down by stupidity. (Otherwise, it would have expired ages ago.) But such slow learners shouldn't be allowed to present themselves as the voice of reason, liberalism, and so on, and a smarter media would be lampooning such individuals, not shilling for their cause. The FFRF members are entitled to see themselves as keepers of our Constitution, but no one else is required to tip-toe around that delusion.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
This week, apparently, has been MBORW
This must be Misunderstand the Bill of Rights Week. At the risk of going against some wildly popular received ideas, let me state that the First Amendment does NOT guarantee the right to say bigoted things on the air and not get fired by NPR. Unless, of course, you don't work for them in the first place. Nor does it forbid newspapers from listing the religious preferences of candidates. Those are two things the First Amendment does not do.
Oh, and it also does not ban "religious symbols" in public. Nor require people of faith to keep our silly, Bronze Age superstitions out of "your" Constitution and public schools.
So, does that mean I'm allowed to inject those things into "your" democracy? Not at all. But I don't have any such power to begin with, do I? What would be the point of a document which bans me from, say, teaching a creation myth as science? "Lee is not allowed to teach creation myths as if they were science." Nope--noplace in the F.A. does this appear.
But guess what does appear? Two simple words: "Congress shall...." Congress, meaning the government. Ahhhhhhhh. Now we see. It's the government that's required to maintain neutrality regarding faith. It's the government that's not allowed to either promote or impede faith. Which, of course, means that public schools shouldn't be teaching religion as science, for one. Why? Because that would 1) shoot the neutrality principle to Heck, and 2) it wouldn't be very science-friendly.
Now, I suppose that, when someone tells me I have to keep "my" religion out of "their" Constitution, etc., I can reply, "No, it's the government that isn't allowed to promote or get in the way of religion--and, last time I checked, I'm not the government." I haven't tried it yet, but I'm sure it'll go over really well.
Why do I bring up points so blatantly, comically obvious? Because we have a folk First Amendment floating around, and it sometimes seems as if more people read IT than the actual document. With the Internet in our midst to speed up and virtually perfect the spread of misinformation, the situation is made that much more toxic. The Internet, of course, is that place where Bill-told-me-so-and-so trumps such boring alternatives as studying up on a topic by using a reliable, expert source. Sooooo Establishment.
The triumph of the folk First Amendment over the one written by our founders is not a trend to cheer, needless to say. It may help answer the question of why we, as Americans, think nothing of assisting the wealthy in pulling the handle on our basic rights--after all, if we don't even know what our basic rights consist of, how will we even notice their absence?
Oh, and it also does not ban "religious symbols" in public. Nor require people of faith to keep our silly, Bronze Age superstitions out of "your" Constitution and public schools.
So, does that mean I'm allowed to inject those things into "your" democracy? Not at all. But I don't have any such power to begin with, do I? What would be the point of a document which bans me from, say, teaching a creation myth as science? "Lee is not allowed to teach creation myths as if they were science." Nope--noplace in the F.A. does this appear.
But guess what does appear? Two simple words: "Congress shall...." Congress, meaning the government. Ahhhhhhhh. Now we see. It's the government that's required to maintain neutrality regarding faith. It's the government that's not allowed to either promote or impede faith. Which, of course, means that public schools shouldn't be teaching religion as science, for one. Why? Because that would 1) shoot the neutrality principle to Heck, and 2) it wouldn't be very science-friendly.
Now, I suppose that, when someone tells me I have to keep "my" religion out of "their" Constitution, etc., I can reply, "No, it's the government that isn't allowed to promote or get in the way of religion--and, last time I checked, I'm not the government." I haven't tried it yet, but I'm sure it'll go over really well.
Why do I bring up points so blatantly, comically obvious? Because we have a folk First Amendment floating around, and it sometimes seems as if more people read IT than the actual document. With the Internet in our midst to speed up and virtually perfect the spread of misinformation, the situation is made that much more toxic. The Internet, of course, is that place where Bill-told-me-so-and-so trumps such boring alternatives as studying up on a topic by using a reliable, expert source. Sooooo Establishment.
The triumph of the folk First Amendment over the one written by our founders is not a trend to cheer, needless to say. It may help answer the question of why we, as Americans, think nothing of assisting the wealthy in pulling the handle on our basic rights--after all, if we don't even know what our basic rights consist of, how will we even notice their absence?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)