La Bama isn’t talking the moribund photo-op that God’s Main ManTM kicked off to lefty howls and Congressional reticence. No, he’ll give it a shiny new name - the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - and elevate it to the moral center of his administration. I’m not clear where the moral center of his administration is and whether jamming “neighborhood” into the title makes it taste any better to the opposition. We’ll see.
It was lead balloon time when Obama raised the flag. The liberal rank and file did not salute. Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State summed it up, “I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration. It ought to be shut down, not continued.”
He’s right about Bush policies being daft and there are legitimate concerns about the integrity of the firewall between church and state. However, Obama argues there’s a great humanitarian need out there and the nation needs all the help it can get to fill it.
I’m an atheist, but I have no problem with believers who don’t force their religion on me. I’m OK with In God We Trust on our money. If school kids want to have prayer meetings, I don’t object as long as they don’t try to convert others and adhere to the same standards as any other school group. I couldn’t care less if you call the holidays Christmas or pledge allegiance to one nation under God. Personally, I view Jeremiah Wright as the flip side of the same wacky coin as John Hagee, but I believe both of them can say what they want because our Constitution and laws say they can - even if it’s the biggest load of hogswallop I’ve ever heard.
But, I’m not OK with John Freshwater, a Mount Vernon, Ohio “science” teacher under fire for teaching creationism. It’s not even the creationism that bothers me. I think it’s a wagon load of crap, but it might be usefully taught as one of many cultural concepts in a world studies, religion, or philosophical program - anything but science. Creationism aside though, Freshwater also showed bad judgment for failing to remove religious materials from his class - an infraction that had already cost his school system a lawsuit.
But the thing I’m REALLY not OK with is this idjit of enlightenment burning crosses onto his students’ arms. Let me emphasize this, Freshwater is a dangerous bigot much worse than Jim Piculas, the Toothpick Wizard. Freshwater used a “high-frequency generator” to burn his students, an act disturbingly close to other “religious” practices like genital mutilation and stoning unmarried pregnant women. To make matters worse, he tried to weasel-speak it away as an “X” instead of a cross. Some performance for an acolyte of a benevolent God, eh?
Some, including some of his students, are now defending Freshwater as a First Amendment patriot. They support his violation of classroom rules by keeping the religious paraphernalia on display and his crosses - which are no longer “X”s now that he has the soapbox - burned into another’s flesh.
I’m sure Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly will disagree, but here’s a newsflash - courts have already made many decisions on what’s allowable in the classroom and I don’t believe using kids as life-size wood burning kits has been approved. Further, court rulings already support the concept that religious paraphernalia isn’t allowed. You may say it violates your First Amendment rights, but the Supreme Court of your country begs to differ. You can prattle on about how you believe the decision should be something else, but we’re not living in a theocracy, we’re living in a democracy where the law of the land isn’t the King James, but the Constitution.
Many of the most conservatively religious people have absolutely no trouble condemning Muslim suicide bombers while defending this type of behavior as somehow superior. Those actions are what makes atheists and those of less-popular faiths cringe. The Freshwater’s of the world believe they live under a “higher” law than the Constitution. I’m tempted to recommend they leave for other, similarly intolerant theocracies or that simply firing Freshwater isn’t enough. But I won’t. I’ll charitably take a familiar page from their Bible instead.
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)
Most religions are based on peace, love, and understanding - at least that’s the theory. Yet, many of the religious ignore that premise, or worse yet, use their chosen holy book to explain why this group or that group doesn’t fall under the Peace, Love, and Understanding Act of 10,000 BC.
In the most virulent parishes, the undeserving are legion. Gays, blacks, other religions, political candidates, and those who don’t wear flag pins or say “Happy Holidays” are persona non grata. Perhaps I’m just an atheist moron, but I don’t see how these groups threaten anyone, even if they don’t share the same beliefs. Same sex marriage is a case in point.
A majority of Americans oppose same sex marriage, but a majority of those (including nearly all politicians) think legal unions are OK. The logic here - what little there is - goes something like this: I’m askeered of homos + I don’t like to be called a bigot + To protect myself from being called a bigot, I’ll say it’s OK for them to get civil unions = Problem solved. But here’s the rub: In what way is a civil union any different than being married?
‘Let No Man Put Asunder…’
Both join two people in love. Both carry legally-binding rights and responsibilities. Both can be recognized by religious institutions and can be ended by divorce, regardless of the participants’ religious affiliation. Both entail struggle and sacrifice, marital trouble, and shared joy. Both can involve children to be cared for and responsibly parented. Both even allow sexual relations - the supposed baseline of the threat itself. But despite these identical characteristics one is a threat to the “tradition” of marriage, and at least to some, a threat that can be mitigated by simply calling it something else.
It’s simple, “I’m scared of clowns, so if I call Ronald McDonald Mr. Crazy Hair my fear will melt away.”
The main argument is that one group believes the other group should be barred from living a life of their choosing, absent any rational explanation of why. The thing that people frequently don’t see is that fear is as equal opportunity as it gets.
Mr. and Mrs. Hagee and all the pious at sea, what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot? What if gays were scared of you and had the power to prevent you from marrying?
Hiding the Issue in Plain Sight
Same sex marriage falls into the same category as most seemingly intractable problems. To solve them requires an ability to put yourself in the others’ shoes. It requires real compromise instead of hiding the problem in plain sight and avoiding it. If the only difference between the two actions is semantic, where’s the percentage in making such a fuss? If a lesbian doesn’t tell the Navy she’s gay, how does she become any less so? If a gay couple wants to be married, how does it deter you from practicing your religious beliefs.
My religious upbringing taught me that the totality of a belief is only “right” up to the time when it abridges someone else’s right to their belief. We see parallels of this idea daily. Belligerent intransigence between political parties, ideologies, or neighbors solves bupkis. Wars are made of such stuff and unfortunately, some perpetuate those fears through intentional meanness or an accidental belief that they have begun reading God as a synonym for themselves.
Remember his advice, “Thou shalt hold God above all others.” Claiming you speak for God is the ultimate violation of this supposedly sacrosanct idea.
If God is as wise and omnipotent as you say, you should be quivering with fear because judgment day is going to be decidedly unpleasant when he reads about your stay in the material world.
In the most virulent parishes, the undeserving are legion. Gays, blacks, other religions, political candidates, and those who don’t wear flag pins or say “Happy Holidays” are 
