In a republic such as ours each generation is posed with unique issues that define their place in history.There are however a few issues that confound succeeding generations as it seeks to find a reasonable resolution.The most potent of these is the principle of separation of church and state.What, if any are the limits,the boundaries of this separation?
I have often been perplexed that no one has expressed my sense on the subject as it seems obvious. Freedom to worship is of course guaranteed in the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights.In the two intervening centuries since our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights later ratified, the boundaries have been altered. The reason of course for this alteration is due to the increasing complexities of a greater and more diverse society seeking to enjoy its guarantees and the promise of prosperity that it may sanction.
In recent decades eforts have been made by individuals who deny the existence of a divine being (god) to remove any reference to "god" from the public forum.All of us have the right to believe or not to believe in the existence of a god or gods without being reduced or diminished by the state. This right to choose our individual sense of faith and the means to express it does not however grant one the right to impose it upon another.That, of course is fundamental.
The overwhelming majority of Americans express a faith in the existence of a divine being, and relatively few have chosen not to accept.If people in accepting the existence of a god cannot impose it on the broader public, why then do those choosing not to accept seek to deny even the most generic of references in a public forum?The choice not to believe in a god is protected, but where in the Constitution,by extension does it provide them with the power to deny public expression in the most generic of terms by the government representing the expressed will of the people?Why should those who believe be binded by such restrictions while those who do not are not?
Do not misunderstand me.I am in no way suggesting that we ought to eliminate the established boundaries between church and state.I merely sugest a rational formula to govern it.If the overwhelming majority of Americans accept the existence of the divine,then a generic,but not faith specific reference by government is by no means unconstitutional.If our currency states "In God We Trust", or our Pledge of Allegiance includes "One Nation Under God", then as long as it is the generic use of "god",it is acceptable.Why? Because it doesn't use faith specific references to Jesus,Moses,Muhammad,etc. A generic reference to a "god" covers all and not being faith specific does not cross a rational boundary.
Many, of course will suggest that any reference to a "god" by the government in any form violates the protections in the Constitution for those who opt out on the existence of a divine entity. This view is intellectually and legally sustainable.However, it can also be argued that atheism as a choice is itself an article of faith and as such to remove even those most generic reference of "god" from public currency,speech or documents is as much a violation of the greater principle as imposing one denomination upon society.
Our government while securing freedom of worship may legitimately express the will of that greater majority that accepts a divinity as a matter of faith.It may only be unconstitutional if its references seemingly favor one over the other and as long as it's generic,applying to all faiths or personal accomodations for those who express a personal faith without denomination.
There are perhaps many who would determine this view as a means of excluding those who have no expressed faith in the existence of a "god". A sense of exclusion in this case is not imposed against their will, but the mere result of their exercising their right to dissent from the prevailing sentiments in the nation. One cannot impose their personal faith or lack thereof due to their unwillingness to recognize self exclusionary decisions and their results. It is time that we recognize, this more generic,and I would argue rational boundary to govern the principle.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Mel Gibson, the Media and Personal Reflection
It is always difficult to watch a public figure implode in a very public way.As we all know now, Mel Gibson expressed in a drunken fit his feelings about Jews.His remarks, which are widely known have justifiably created a firestorm of criticical response.
All of us, if we are honest, fully acknowledging our fallible nature have dragons that need to be slain. Many find it necessary to combat alcohol,drugs, or a sexually exploitive existence among many other controllable maladies that permeate our existence.Mr. Gibson, being an adult must confront the demons within that are given voice when his inhibitions are lessened.It is his personal responsibilty to confront their nature and origins.He has expressed his regrets, an apology for his remarks.He has sought counsel from those whom he has offended so as to heal those wounds. That is a great step forward, and one ought to hope it is properly realized.
There is a trend in this country that I find as disturbing as Mel Gibson's rants.In many circles, from journalists to entertainers (and many in between) we seem to find satisfaction when a public figure falls from grace. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but for all of Mel Gibson's self inflicted wounds, no one ought to find joy.This applies not only to the specifics of this all too public affair, but to many more over the years. Mr. Gibson has fallen and no matter how repellent his statements, we as a compassionate society must be willing to aid him in his desire to make amends.That is assuming he is genuinely apologetic.
Bigotry can only prosper if we try to isolate it rather than seeking to properly educate those to whom it has embraced.We do this not out of naivete' but in recognition of the infirmities that pervade our existence. In all of human history, bigotry and racism have been at the core of its greatest tragedies.It is and has been the most destructive of human frailties, but it is only one of many infirmities that has afflicted humanity.
It would seem contrary in this politically correct world to embrace one who has so vilely expressed himself as Mel Gibson.Presently, in our society we aid those who are addicted to alcohol and drugs for those who seek our help.In many cases as is increasingly common, friends stage "interventions" to help those they feel are in denial of their addiction.If we are capable of reaching out to those in a vicious cycle of chemical dependancy, then it is incumbent upon us to engage those bitter souls possessing of that most hateful of human conditions we call racism.
There are no doubt, many who would view this position as appeasing hatemongers, and there is admittedly a danger. I would ask all who take that view to ponder and reflect on their lives. Have you never in your life ever said or done anything that makes you wince just in its remembrance? Can you honestly state you've never uttered a hateful or hurtful thing in your life? Before we cast Mel Gibson into the lower depths of Dante's Inferno and disregard his attempt at repentance, we ought to reflect on the totality of our existence,our thoughts,our words,our actions and reconsider where we would be if no one held out a compassionate hand to help us slay the dragons that inhabit us, whatever their nature.
All of us, if we are honest, fully acknowledging our fallible nature have dragons that need to be slain. Many find it necessary to combat alcohol,drugs, or a sexually exploitive existence among many other controllable maladies that permeate our existence.Mr. Gibson, being an adult must confront the demons within that are given voice when his inhibitions are lessened.It is his personal responsibilty to confront their nature and origins.He has expressed his regrets, an apology for his remarks.He has sought counsel from those whom he has offended so as to heal those wounds. That is a great step forward, and one ought to hope it is properly realized.
There is a trend in this country that I find as disturbing as Mel Gibson's rants.In many circles, from journalists to entertainers (and many in between) we seem to find satisfaction when a public figure falls from grace. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but for all of Mel Gibson's self inflicted wounds, no one ought to find joy.This applies not only to the specifics of this all too public affair, but to many more over the years. Mr. Gibson has fallen and no matter how repellent his statements, we as a compassionate society must be willing to aid him in his desire to make amends.That is assuming he is genuinely apologetic.
Bigotry can only prosper if we try to isolate it rather than seeking to properly educate those to whom it has embraced.We do this not out of naivete' but in recognition of the infirmities that pervade our existence. In all of human history, bigotry and racism have been at the core of its greatest tragedies.It is and has been the most destructive of human frailties, but it is only one of many infirmities that has afflicted humanity.
It would seem contrary in this politically correct world to embrace one who has so vilely expressed himself as Mel Gibson.Presently, in our society we aid those who are addicted to alcohol and drugs for those who seek our help.In many cases as is increasingly common, friends stage "interventions" to help those they feel are in denial of their addiction.If we are capable of reaching out to those in a vicious cycle of chemical dependancy, then it is incumbent upon us to engage those bitter souls possessing of that most hateful of human conditions we call racism.
There are no doubt, many who would view this position as appeasing hatemongers, and there is admittedly a danger. I would ask all who take that view to ponder and reflect on their lives. Have you never in your life ever said or done anything that makes you wince just in its remembrance? Can you honestly state you've never uttered a hateful or hurtful thing in your life? Before we cast Mel Gibson into the lower depths of Dante's Inferno and disregard his attempt at repentance, we ought to reflect on the totality of our existence,our thoughts,our words,our actions and reconsider where we would be if no one held out a compassionate hand to help us slay the dragons that inhabit us, whatever their nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
