Light is Good
Mar. 3rd, 2005 07:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jaunthieI'm so glad mornings are getting lighter. It's still dark out when I get up, but there was definitely a bit of light on the horizon when I left the house this morning to walk and get the van. Of course it was also distinctly later than the last time I tried this: 5:55 a.m. is a little easier on the system than the previous 5:40 a.m.. Of course I felt I had to hustle, but I probably didn't have to as much as I feared. I still had time to stop by the coffee shop and get my morning cuppa, walk more slowly from the coffee shop to the van, and warm up the van with plenty of time to spare. I did take the short way, so I'm only up 1.45 miles for the morning. This could get tricky, as I have a lot of things going on this evening, and I still have to get in at least 2.55 miles in for the day in order to make my 4. Oh well, I'm sure I'll figure out a way to get it in.
This morning's subject for musing while I hurried along was the current "religious monuments in government buildings" brouhaha currently raging in the Supreme Court. Personally, I think those who want to go in and remove all religious references from all our government buildings are going overboard. It's part of our history as a country, and often a valuable bit of artistry. Nor do I think we should go around removing all religious references from currency, our various national and government seals, and so on. Again, it's part of our history. However, going forward into the future, I also think those who erect 10-foot monuments to the 10 Commandments in front of courthouse buildings in this day and age are equally going overboard. They're deliberately trying to provoke people in hopes of making a point. I've seen pictures, and that monument would be lovely in front of a church. It's not appropriate in front of a courthouse, particularly with foot-high placement of "I am the LORD Thy GOD" front and center.
Someone on the nightly news last night made the particularly inappropriate comment that if an atheist or a member of another religion found that monument offensive, all they had to do was avert their eyes. To which I say, HUH? I don't think so. Someone shouldn't have to avert their eyes when entering a PUBLIC, secular building that their tax dollars paid for. (Of course, I also think that publicly-funded stadiums should be named for the taxpayers that paid for them and not have the naming rights sold to some private company, but that's another entry.) If we demand companies recall or "critically patch" entire products because one font character set contains a swastika as an extra symbol, how then can we justify the idea that people just "avert their eyes" to not be offended? Granted, I also think Americans as a whole could use a general toning-down of the offensive-sensitivity, but that applies equally to the religious right as to any other group. The old Bloom County cartoon had it right: "'My Gosh! LIFE is offensive! AIGH!!!' 'Offensensitivity.'" Deal with it - but don't deal with it by pretending that you're the only one being offended or infringed upon. But again, I digress.
I find it quite revealing that while polls consistently show that most Americans don't have a problem with public display of elements of our Christian religious background and history in government buildings, a majority DO have a problem with the idea of public display of other religious symbols or texts in the selfsame places. For example, most Americans don't like the idea of "There is no god but GOD" similarly displayed, or want a 10-foot-high golden Buddha smiling at them as they jaunt up the courthouse steps. I don't like hypocrisy - hardly a surprise to those of you who already know me.
I say that freedom of religion and the separation of Church and State are two of our most precious, most fundamental American values. Those who carry God in their hearts are going to do so no matter where they are. Nor do they need reminders like public displays of the Commandments; if you don't carry beliefs internally, no amount of public broadcast can make you do so. Moreover, the Church and State are constitutionally separate. The issue in front of the Court is not an attempt to mandate that individuals NOT be religious, but whether these new, solely religious displays are appropriate ones for government buildings that are meant for ALL people.
As long as we abide by our constitution, the government will never attempt to legislate or enforce religious beliefs on anyone. That's a win in my book.
What do you think?
Edited to add: Perhaps the reason I don't understand some of the brouhaha is that I don't think I have an evangelical bone in my entire body. To me, faith is an intensely personal and private thing. I can theorize why those who wish to proselytize might resent any restrictions on their efforts, whether based in law or not - but it's just theories, as I don't have that urge.
This morning's subject for musing while I hurried along was the current "religious monuments in government buildings" brouhaha currently raging in the Supreme Court. Personally, I think those who want to go in and remove all religious references from all our government buildings are going overboard. It's part of our history as a country, and often a valuable bit of artistry. Nor do I think we should go around removing all religious references from currency, our various national and government seals, and so on. Again, it's part of our history. However, going forward into the future, I also think those who erect 10-foot monuments to the 10 Commandments in front of courthouse buildings in this day and age are equally going overboard. They're deliberately trying to provoke people in hopes of making a point. I've seen pictures, and that monument would be lovely in front of a church. It's not appropriate in front of a courthouse, particularly with foot-high placement of "I am the LORD Thy GOD" front and center.
Someone on the nightly news last night made the particularly inappropriate comment that if an atheist or a member of another religion found that monument offensive, all they had to do was avert their eyes. To which I say, HUH? I don't think so. Someone shouldn't have to avert their eyes when entering a PUBLIC, secular building that their tax dollars paid for. (Of course, I also think that publicly-funded stadiums should be named for the taxpayers that paid for them and not have the naming rights sold to some private company, but that's another entry.) If we demand companies recall or "critically patch" entire products because one font character set contains a swastika as an extra symbol, how then can we justify the idea that people just "avert their eyes" to not be offended? Granted, I also think Americans as a whole could use a general toning-down of the offensive-sensitivity, but that applies equally to the religious right as to any other group. The old Bloom County cartoon had it right: "'My Gosh! LIFE is offensive! AIGH!!!' 'Offensensitivity.'" Deal with it - but don't deal with it by pretending that you're the only one being offended or infringed upon. But again, I digress.
I find it quite revealing that while polls consistently show that most Americans don't have a problem with public display of elements of our Christian religious background and history in government buildings, a majority DO have a problem with the idea of public display of other religious symbols or texts in the selfsame places. For example, most Americans don't like the idea of "There is no god but GOD" similarly displayed, or want a 10-foot-high golden Buddha smiling at them as they jaunt up the courthouse steps. I don't like hypocrisy - hardly a surprise to those of you who already know me.
I say that freedom of religion and the separation of Church and State are two of our most precious, most fundamental American values. Those who carry God in their hearts are going to do so no matter where they are. Nor do they need reminders like public displays of the Commandments; if you don't carry beliefs internally, no amount of public broadcast can make you do so. Moreover, the Church and State are constitutionally separate. The issue in front of the Court is not an attempt to mandate that individuals NOT be religious, but whether these new, solely religious displays are appropriate ones for government buildings that are meant for ALL people.
As long as we abide by our constitution, the government will never attempt to legislate or enforce religious beliefs on anyone. That's a win in my book.
What do you think?
Edited to add: Perhaps the reason I don't understand some of the brouhaha is that I don't think I have an evangelical bone in my entire body. To me, faith is an intensely personal and private thing. I can theorize why those who wish to proselytize might resent any restrictions on their efforts, whether based in law or not - but it's just theories, as I don't have that urge.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-07 10:26 pm (UTC)