Matters of Faith
There is much furor in the country right now over religious expression. Liberals seem to really get their knickers in a twist if anyone makes some public statement of faith. The theoretical urge to not offend is as admirable as it is silly. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect humans to say and do nothing that offends anyone. I mean, my hell, I am gay. My very existence offends some people. To all the atheists who get all worked up every time they have to endure a prayer, I say, "You are in the minority in this country. Get over it. You being offended by a believer invoking the protection of his God is about as stupid as would be me being offending by a man and a woman holding hands at the mall. It's a waste of time and energy."
Michael Newdow, after his unsuccessful attempt to remove "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, is now trying to ban prayer at presidential inauguration. Once again, the logic is by invoking God, or specifically George Bush's god, all who believe differently would feel left out, that allowing religious expression during such a ceremony would be tantamount to the government endorsing religion. Well, doesn't our government endorse religion? Wasn't the point of America religious freedom? Doesn't it seem rather counter to the ideals that formed the United States to forbid public expressions of faith? How come no one is screaming about first amendment rights to free speech? If George Bush wants to start his second term in office with a prayer, why shouldn't he? If Joseph Lieberman had been elected and wanted a rabbi to bless his presidency, why shouldn't he? If Michael Newdow had been elected and wished no such ceremony that should be equally fine.
And if you want to start talking about faith, the liberal left does have faith in a higher power, it's just not God. It's government. A recent political cartoon shows George Bush about to take a sledge hammer to a toaster labeled Social Security. Not sure exactly what he's implying. Is he trying to say social security is as fragile as a toaster? (I mean, how many toasters have you owned in your lifetime?) Or is he saying that George Bush's proposals that would allow me to manage my retirement would be a death blow to social security? This governmental higher power knows better how to manage money? There's certainly no rational or historical proof of that. Is there some sacred text I don't know about?
It seems to me to make more sense to teach respect for other's viewpoints, to allow all views to be expressed and respond to those which offend with restraint, reason and respect. That sounds more like a world I would enjoy living in and one more people would be willing to work for.