After watching my government denying Catholic institutions the ability to act in accordance with religious teachings, I was struck by the irony that is developing.
Religion/Belief
President Obama is trying to walk back from the war he started with Catholics by trying to cram down their throats his dictates that go against their core beliefs. His administration says they are open to work something out. I am glad to hear that. The fix is simple.
Photo by Ted Abbott
Can we now drop any pretense that Joe Biden is anything but a CINO (Catholic in Name Only)? On his latest state visit to China, Biden gave a speech that should be characterized as other than “just Joe being Joe.”
President Obama believes he has found the model for steering the chaos in the Middle East to peaceful democratic rule. Poland. But Obama ignores the historical events and players that surrounded that transformation from communist rule to independence.
President Obama, during his 2010 State of the Union address, did the unprecedented, which I suppose should surprise no one. He called out the Supreme Court, whose members were seated in front of him, and lambasted them on a recent decision called Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. The outcome of the case was that free speech was not limited only to individuals but could include corporations, groups of individuals, etc. As Justice Scalia pointed out in his concurring opinion, the First Amendment refers to speech not speakers.
The controversy surrounding the Ground Zero mosque remains at the top of the news. The battle over who stood where on the issue is shaping up to be a key campaign issue for November. In New York, one of the candidates, Randy Altschuler has been pounding the Democrat incumbent Tim Bishop to say where he stands. After considerable foot dragging, Bishop finally came out as opposed to the mosque being built in the shadow of Ground Zero. Why did it take so long? Was he putting his finger in the air to determine which answer would score the most political points?
What about some of the other politicians? Altschuler is strongly opposed as is indicated on the front page of his website. Chris Cox, who is running against Altschuler and Bishop, it is not so clear. It doesn’t appear on his website, at least not in any of the obvious places. Newsday gives a rundown on those already in office.
- Those opposed: Peter King (R), Tim Bishop (D), Steve Isreal (D)
- It wouldn’t be fair to say the following politicians favor the project, they more judiciously say they are not opposed;
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D), the unelected Senator appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat is in a special election this fall
- Carolyn McCarthy (D) takes no stand other than to say it is emotional. Ms. McCarthy was propelled into office on the sympathy she garnered when tragedy struck her family at the hand of LIRR gunman Colin Ferguson. Afterwards she felt compelled to travel the country and fight for gun control, making it harder for her fellow law abiding citizens to protect their homes and families. But when 3,000 of her neighbors are slaughtered in the name of Islam, she has no opinion about a mosque being built nearby other than to say it’s an emotional issue.
- It has been said that the most dangerous place on earth is the ground between Chuck Schumer (D) and a television camera. Chuck’s been in hiding on this issue, but through a spokesman he says he’s not opposed.
- Gary Ackerman (D) is on vacation and apparently his office doesn’t know his position or how to contact him to ask.
The more interesting thing is an article in the Daily Caller that reports about moderate Muslims who are opposed to the mosque on the same grounds as most Americans. They feel it is insensitive and inappropriate. There may be a majority of Muslims here and around the world who are appalled by the actions of the radical extremists, but they are not very outspoken. They were not outspoken on 9/11 nor are they very outspoken regarding the mosque. Their voices are muted at best, when they should be screaming from the rooftops that these miscreants are hijacking their religion. It could be for fear of reprisal from the radicals, who will kill anyone at the merest provocation. However, if they don’t speak up, their silence will speak for them. The radicals will become more strident and non-Muslims will take the moderate’s silence as acquiescence. If the moderates truly believe what this article says, the mosque would not be built and healing the rift between Muslims and non-Muslims could begin in earnest. They need to be more vocal and take the lead in the War on Terrorism, to root out this evil from Islam.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” — Amendment I, Constitution of the United States
So what is one to make of the new campaign sponsored by atheists that says, “No God? That’s good. Let’s be good for goodness sake.” Who could argue with the last part? After all it comes from that famous Christmas carol, Santa Claus is Coming to Town. But what are we to make of the first part?
How do you argue in favor of something that doesn’t exist? Having a manger scene in the public square next to a menorah is not the establishment of religion on the part of the government that is prohibited in the Constitution. But demanding that all signs and symbols of religion be banned from the public, to me, comes pretty close to the state establishment of a religion called secularism. What was the point of the First Amendment prohibition of the establishment of religion?
Religion and America
The atheists will argue that a manger scene on public land is contrary to the establishment clause. How so, I ask? Specifically what religion is it establishing? Christianity? One of the reasons that the Founders created the establishment clause was to protect freedom of religion. Christianity is too broad a term to be considered an organized religion. If you don’t believe me, ask the Pilgrims, and the Quakers, and the Catholics, and the Mennonites who fled the persecution that came with not swearing allegiance to the Church of England. They are all Christians and that was the whole point. The Founding Fathers did not want the new nation of the United States to form an official state religion and a specific form of worship and tyrannize anyone who did not adhere to it. Having a belief in God and adhering to a particular way of practicing it are not the same. It is easy to see that the Founding fathers manifestly believed in the former while protecting everyone’s rights to the latter. So the very argument that the atheists and the ACLU are making should be pointed at themselves, for they are demanding that everyone follow their religion to keep the public square naked.
Faith of Our Fathers
“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…” — The Declaration of Independence
Are we to believe that the same people who wrote and signed this document meant that faith should be banished from the public square? The Founding Fathers called upon God repeatedly for strength, guidance, and courage. To say we should do the opposite today and call that the American way is bizarre, to say the least.
Pointing Out the Obvious
In any display of a manger scene or a menorah, or a Christmas tree, wreath, etc. the atheists are also covered. Perhaps we need to be more careful to make it obvious. An area, of appropriate size, should just be cordoned off or outlined in chalk, with nothing in it. That’s what atheists believe in, nothing, so wherever you see nothing around the display, they are there. They are represented. Their tacky messages criticizing or condemning people of faith, is what is out of place and should be condemned. You don’t see a message in front of a manger scene or Christmas tree pointing to the menorah saying, “They missed the boat on this one!” Or a sign in front of the menorah pointing back at the manger saying, “Never happened!” The universal messages are peace and understanding, not a Madison Avenue pitch for one brand over another. So the atheists should stand down and go back to work.
Go Back to Work?
Yes, go to work. Why are you taking December 25th off? Without Christ, there is no Christmas. Without Christmas there is no national holiday on December 25th. With no national holiday on December 25th why aren’t you atheists working? Instead of putting up insipid signs on buses go to work with gusto! That will show the rest of us!
In his book, “What Americans Really Want…Really, ”Frank Luntz writes:
“Harris Interactive and MBA students from Brigham Young University developed a “happiness index” based on a list of questions such as positive relationships with friends and family members, worry about work and finances, and spiritual beliefs…for the most part, the results were conclusive: The happiest people were those who described themselves as very religious and those who pray or study religion every day. Religious people worry less about their health and are less frustrated with work. At the very bottom of the happiness index were people who said they were not religious at all. The angriest people are atheists and agnostics.”
Just Because You’re Miserable, Don’t Blame the Rest of Us
So you don’t believe in God. This is America, that is your right. But you don’t have the right to tell the rest of us what to believe. “Well, you can’t do that in the public square, because it offends me.” How do you come out of your dwelling this time of year? If you are truly offended by Christmas how could you set foot in New York City? Is your argument that all the stores and churches along Fifth Avenue with their decorations are okay, but the decorations in City Hall Park, are an outrage to your sensibilities? Or are you really trying to start by establishing your religion of Secularism in direct violation of the Constitution?
Lunacy Unleashed
This has really gone too far. From removing a cross from the seal of the city of San Diego, to the assault on Christmas when will it end? When will we see the campaign to rename Corpus Christi, Texas, since the name means “The Body of Christ”?
Instead of attacking people of faith, how about trying to emulate them. Be of good cheer, hold a door open, help out at a soup kitchen, sing a joyful song. Maybe, just maybe, the next time Frank Luntz takes a poll, you won’t be the miserable wretches at the bottom of the happiness index.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
