Had at least two new thoughts concerning immigration today. One came while reading "Cartels and Combinations" (a novel). Two drug gangsters are talking, and one says the reason the U.S. has reduced the number of agents at the border is to allow more people to enter, so the politicians can reap their votes.
"Strange people, those Americanos." replies the other gangster. "Don't they realize that our people who cross over without papers are helping us distribute our products up there?"
Yes, it is true: Many (though not all) of those who migrate across the border are pressed into service by the cartels. I got wondering how many. It occurred to me there is some information -- maybe even a wealth of information -- about the cartels we could tap into if we could get the immigrants to sing. I am supposing they are usually out the influence of the cartels once they are here, no longer being monitored by them.
But, they do not go directly to the police simply because that would be turning themselves in. Now, inasmuch as informants to crimes are often not prosecuted, in exchange for their testimonies, how is it we don't utilize our immigrants the same way?
I got a name for this idea, "Project Sing." A program such as this will help in the war against crime and it will make it so a host of immigrants can live here legally. We've got work visas and espousal visas and I don't know all what other kinds of visas. Now, we can have the "Sing Visa."
Friday, December 31, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Is it, Have a Merry Christmas, or a Holy One?
I've thought all week of the greeting, "Have a merry Christmas." We wonder about Christ being taken out of Christmas, don't we? Well, last week, it occurred to me "Have a merry Christmas" is not necessarily a greeting expressing Christmas being about the birth of the Savior. The word "merry" sides more toward it being a day of festive, Santa Claus-type celebration.
So, am I playing into the game of taking Christ out of Christmas by greeting people with "Have a merry Christmas"? Should I, instead, offer something that would indicate Christmas is about Christ? Maybe I could say, "Have a very holy Christmas."
As Christmas, itself, draws almost here, I find myself coming to the conclusion it is quite all right that Christmas is not just about Christ. For all the worthiness of keeping Christ in Christmas, I don't see a big need to take Santa out, either. So, no, I do not need to feel guilty for saying, "Have a merry Christmas." Saying "Have a holy Christmas" would be fine, and would reflect that it is a day honoring the Savior for His birth. But, Christmas has come to also mean other things -- to mean Santa and all -- and some people simply do choose to have the day mean no more. I can respect that by offering "Have a merry Christmas" as my greeting. This does not prevent me from honoring the Savior on Christmas day. Christmas can remain, for me, a day for observing the Savior's birth.
It simply isn't such a day to many, though, and I should respect their right to worship (or not worship) as they choose. While offering "Have a very holy Christmas" can be no more than a reflection of my own beliefs, and therefore not wrong, it might also be argued that by telling a person to have a holy Christmas, I am telling that person to observe Christmas my way, to observe it as a day in honor of the Savior's birth.
If I do greet a non-believer with, "Have a holy Christmas," I would hope they will not take offense, but rather realize I am expressing my own beliefs and expressing what Christmas means to me. Freedom of religion should allow me to express my beliefs whenever and wherever I choose.
But having a right does not always mean exercising it is right. We shouldn't do things simply because we can. In this case, I expect I will usually choose "Have a merry Christmas" as a way of being considerate of others.
And, I may well (probably will) continue with "Have a merry Christmas" even when speaking to those who I know are believers. They know Christmas for me is a day honoring the Savior's birth. So when I say, "Have a merry Christmas," they know that is what I mean.
So, am I playing into the game of taking Christ out of Christmas by greeting people with "Have a merry Christmas"? Should I, instead, offer something that would indicate Christmas is about Christ? Maybe I could say, "Have a very holy Christmas."
As Christmas, itself, draws almost here, I find myself coming to the conclusion it is quite all right that Christmas is not just about Christ. For all the worthiness of keeping Christ in Christmas, I don't see a big need to take Santa out, either. So, no, I do not need to feel guilty for saying, "Have a merry Christmas." Saying "Have a holy Christmas" would be fine, and would reflect that it is a day honoring the Savior for His birth. But, Christmas has come to also mean other things -- to mean Santa and all -- and some people simply do choose to have the day mean no more. I can respect that by offering "Have a merry Christmas" as my greeting. This does not prevent me from honoring the Savior on Christmas day. Christmas can remain, for me, a day for observing the Savior's birth.
It simply isn't such a day to many, though, and I should respect their right to worship (or not worship) as they choose. While offering "Have a very holy Christmas" can be no more than a reflection of my own beliefs, and therefore not wrong, it might also be argued that by telling a person to have a holy Christmas, I am telling that person to observe Christmas my way, to observe it as a day in honor of the Savior's birth.
If I do greet a non-believer with, "Have a holy Christmas," I would hope they will not take offense, but rather realize I am expressing my own beliefs and expressing what Christmas means to me. Freedom of religion should allow me to express my beliefs whenever and wherever I choose.
But having a right does not always mean exercising it is right. We shouldn't do things simply because we can. In this case, I expect I will usually choose "Have a merry Christmas" as a way of being considerate of others.
And, I may well (probably will) continue with "Have a merry Christmas" even when speaking to those who I know are believers. They know Christmas for me is a day honoring the Savior's birth. So when I say, "Have a merry Christmas," they know that is what I mean.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Columbus and the Eclipse of 1503
So, we had a lunar eclipse last night. I bring you a story of one of the most famous lunar eclipses, famous for the "prophecy" from Christopher Columbus that it was coming. Columbus. If the Wikipedian historians from whom I read this story judged Columbus fairly, the story won't say much for Columbus' honesty, but it will speak to his cunning.
In 1503, Columbus' ships were grounded in Jamaica. The folks there greeted the newcomers, fed them, and treated them well -- only to have Columbus' sailors cheat and steal from them. So, understandably, the Jamaicans cut off the free food.
Columbus, having an almanac with him, happened to read how a lunar eclipse was about to occur and used it to prophesy. He told the leader of the people his God was not pleased with them for cutting off the food, and that to show it, he would give a clear sign. The God would take the rising full moon and make it appear "inflamed with wrath."
Apparently, Columbus' almanac told him it would be a red moon. Well, the red moon came out and then disappeared as Columbus prophesied, and the people screamed in horror and fear and ran to Columbus' with their food, begging for him to ask his God to pardon them. So, Columbus, knowing when the eclipse would end, told them they were, indeed, going to be forgiven. And, just as the moon began to come out from the shadow of the earth, Columbus told them his God had forgiven them.
In 1503, Columbus' ships were grounded in Jamaica. The folks there greeted the newcomers, fed them, and treated them well -- only to have Columbus' sailors cheat and steal from them. So, understandably, the Jamaicans cut off the free food.
Columbus, having an almanac with him, happened to read how a lunar eclipse was about to occur and used it to prophesy. He told the leader of the people his God was not pleased with them for cutting off the food, and that to show it, he would give a clear sign. The God would take the rising full moon and make it appear "inflamed with wrath."
Apparently, Columbus' almanac told him it would be a red moon. Well, the red moon came out and then disappeared as Columbus prophesied, and the people screamed in horror and fear and ran to Columbus' with their food, begging for him to ask his God to pardon them. So, Columbus, knowing when the eclipse would end, told them they were, indeed, going to be forgiven. And, just as the moon began to come out from the shadow of the earth, Columbus told them his God had forgiven them.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Bring on the DREAM Act, Flawed Though it be
I hesitate to favor the DREAM Act, a piece of legislation that would turn some undocumented residents into legal residents. The DREAM Act creates a path toward citizenship for those who were under age 16 when they came to the U.S. Only those willing to further their education or serve in the military qualify for help.
Having education as the qualifier seems wrong on two counts. First, if one of the criticisms of the undocumented resident is that they often go through our education system without paying, why then should we make legal the very ones who "abuse" our system? Second, it concerns me that only the higher caste -- those able to obtain an education -- are being advanced towards citizenship, while the most poor and downtrodden are being left behind.
I think about some of the other objections being raised. One is that the DREAM Act is amnesty.
But, the thing which bothers me most is that we are rewarding those who have escaped the law. One requirement is that they have been in the U.S. five years in order to qualify. So, we make it a requirement that they have successfully avoided deportation for five years in order to qualify not to be deported? Does that make sense?
I much favor just granting the immigrant citizenship upon arrival at the border, rather than instituting a hypocritical system of reward them for successfully abusing our system.
Well, there is a lot I don't know about the undocumented worker. Basic stuff, I admit. Like, how many of them do not go to school? Maybe they all do and I am worried about leaving behind those who don't when there aren't hardly any at all who don't.
No, I don't like the idea of them using our education system without paying income taxes, but what is the alternative? If they are here, and we deprive them of an education, is that wise? I say, give them an education regardless whether they pay their share. But, let it remain before our eyes that the way to erase this inequality is to make them legal right when they come across the border, thus making them taxpayers from the get-go.
As for amnesty, considering that we are merely excusing them for coming without paperwork, I don't think it a wrong -- but we shouldn't do it unless we also make it legal to come here in the first place. We have a system of pardons for those who commit real crimes, even serious crimes, so why not pardon those who simply didn't comply with the requirement that they have paperwork? I don't, though, like the idea of granting amnesty while at the same time restricting immigration so tightly that people continue to pour in illegally, thus creating a system where you come illegally and then, having been successful at that, are granted legality. Amnesty should be accompanied with laws making it legal for them to enter in the first place.
Well, I close this blog weighing in lightly in favor of the DREAM Act. I would like to see all those who are otherwise obeying the law made legal, and the DREAM Act would, indeed, help some. I do not like creating a hypocritical system, but perhaps a hypocritical system that brings justice to some is better than a system that brings justice to none. As for leaving the most disadvantaged behind, while that is not good, again, it is better to bring some along than to leave everyone behind.
Having education as the qualifier seems wrong on two counts. First, if one of the criticisms of the undocumented resident is that they often go through our education system without paying, why then should we make legal the very ones who "abuse" our system? Second, it concerns me that only the higher caste -- those able to obtain an education -- are being advanced towards citizenship, while the most poor and downtrodden are being left behind.
I think about some of the other objections being raised. One is that the DREAM Act is amnesty.
But, the thing which bothers me most is that we are rewarding those who have escaped the law. One requirement is that they have been in the U.S. five years in order to qualify. So, we make it a requirement that they have successfully avoided deportation for five years in order to qualify not to be deported? Does that make sense?
I much favor just granting the immigrant citizenship upon arrival at the border, rather than instituting a hypocritical system of reward them for successfully abusing our system.
Well, there is a lot I don't know about the undocumented worker. Basic stuff, I admit. Like, how many of them do not go to school? Maybe they all do and I am worried about leaving behind those who don't when there aren't hardly any at all who don't.
No, I don't like the idea of them using our education system without paying income taxes, but what is the alternative? If they are here, and we deprive them of an education, is that wise? I say, give them an education regardless whether they pay their share. But, let it remain before our eyes that the way to erase this inequality is to make them legal right when they come across the border, thus making them taxpayers from the get-go.
As for amnesty, considering that we are merely excusing them for coming without paperwork, I don't think it a wrong -- but we shouldn't do it unless we also make it legal to come here in the first place. We have a system of pardons for those who commit real crimes, even serious crimes, so why not pardon those who simply didn't comply with the requirement that they have paperwork? I don't, though, like the idea of granting amnesty while at the same time restricting immigration so tightly that people continue to pour in illegally, thus creating a system where you come illegally and then, having been successful at that, are granted legality. Amnesty should be accompanied with laws making it legal for them to enter in the first place.
Well, I close this blog weighing in lightly in favor of the DREAM Act. I would like to see all those who are otherwise obeying the law made legal, and the DREAM Act would, indeed, help some. I do not like creating a hypocritical system, but perhaps a hypocritical system that brings justice to some is better than a system that brings justice to none. As for leaving the most disadvantaged behind, while that is not good, again, it is better to bring some along than to leave everyone behind.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
God is There, in Obama's Proclamation
And, God is mentioned.
Some have been watching for President Barack Obama's 2010 Thanksgiving proclamation, wondering if it will refer to God, and direct thanks to God.
Today, Obama released the proclamation, and it says, "We lift up our hearts in gratitude to God for our many blessings."
And, it also says, "Let us rejoice . . . in the gifts of a gracious God."
And, so the string continues. I'm told, every president who has issued a proclamation has cited God as a giver of blessings. I looked through many of the proclamations, and believe that statement correct.
Some wondered why Obama's 2009 proclamation was not more direct in mentioning God. In that presidential decree, he said, "I encourage all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather, with gratitude for all we have received in the past year; to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own; and to share our bounty with others."
Where is the mention of God? some asked, and why is not God to be thanked for all our blessings?
The 2009 proclamation did offer a reference to God, but Obama was quoting from the first presidential proclamation, not giving his own, personal recognition. Said that sentence in the 2009 statement: "Today, we recall President George Washington, who proclaimed our first national day of public thanksgiving to be observed 'by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.' "
And, now, the full of the Thanksgiving Day 2010 proclamation, issued November 23, 2010.
"A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
"A beloved American tradition, Thanksgiving Day offers us the opportunity to focus our thoughts on the grace that has been extended to our people and our country. This spirit brought together the newly arrived Pilgrims and the Wampanoag tribe -- who had been living and thriving around Plymouth, Massachusetts for thousands of years -- in an autumn harvest feast centuries ago. This Thanksgiving Day, we reflect on the compassion and contributions of Native Americans, whose skill in agriculture helped the early colonists survive, and whose rich culture continues to add to our Nation's heritage. We also pause our normal pursuits on this day and join in a spirit of fellowship and gratitude for the year's bounties and blessings.
"Thanksgiving Day is a time each year, dating back to our founding, when we lay aside the troubles and disagreements of the day and bow our heads in humble recognition of the providence bestowed upon our Nation. Amidst the uncertainty of a fledgling experiment in democracy, President George Washington declared the first Thanksgiving in America, recounting the blessings of tranquility, union, and plenty that shined upon our young country. In the dark days of the Civil War when the fate of our Union was in doubt, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a Thanksgiving Day, calling for 'the Almighty hand' to heal and restore our Nation.
"In confronting the challenges of our day, we must draw strength from the resolve of previous generations who faced their own struggles and take comfort in knowing a brighter day has always dawned on our great land. As we stand at the close of one year and look to the promise of the next, we lift up our hearts in gratitude to God for our many blessings, for one another, and for our Nation. This Thanksgiving Day, we remember that the freedoms and security we enjoy as Americans are protected by the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces. These patriots are willing to lay down their lives in our defense, and they and their families deserve our profound gratitude for their service and sacrifice.
"This harvest season, we are also reminded of those experiencing the pangs of hunger or the hardship of economic insecurity. Let us return the kindness and generosity we have seen throughout the year by helping our fellow citizens weather the storms of our day.
"As Americans gather for the time-honored Thanksgiving Day meal, let us rejoice in the abundance that graces our tables, in the simple gifts that mark our days, in the loved ones who enrich our lives, and in the gifts of a gracious God. Let us recall that our forebears met their challenges with hope and an unfailing spirit, and let us resolve to do the same.
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 25, 2010, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all the people of the United States to come together -- whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place of fellowship for friends and neighbors -- to give thanks for all we have received in the past year, to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own, and to share our bounty with others.
"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.
"BARACK OBAMA"
Some have been watching for President Barack Obama's 2010 Thanksgiving proclamation, wondering if it will refer to God, and direct thanks to God.
Today, Obama released the proclamation, and it says, "We lift up our hearts in gratitude to God for our many blessings."
And, it also says, "Let us rejoice . . . in the gifts of a gracious God."
And, so the string continues. I'm told, every president who has issued a proclamation has cited God as a giver of blessings. I looked through many of the proclamations, and believe that statement correct.
Some wondered why Obama's 2009 proclamation was not more direct in mentioning God. In that presidential decree, he said, "I encourage all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather, with gratitude for all we have received in the past year; to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own; and to share our bounty with others."
Where is the mention of God? some asked, and why is not God to be thanked for all our blessings?
The 2009 proclamation did offer a reference to God, but Obama was quoting from the first presidential proclamation, not giving his own, personal recognition. Said that sentence in the 2009 statement: "Today, we recall President George Washington, who proclaimed our first national day of public thanksgiving to be observed 'by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.' "
And, now, the full of the Thanksgiving Day 2010 proclamation, issued November 23, 2010.
"A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
"A beloved American tradition, Thanksgiving Day offers us the opportunity to focus our thoughts on the grace that has been extended to our people and our country. This spirit brought together the newly arrived Pilgrims and the Wampanoag tribe -- who had been living and thriving around Plymouth, Massachusetts for thousands of years -- in an autumn harvest feast centuries ago. This Thanksgiving Day, we reflect on the compassion and contributions of Native Americans, whose skill in agriculture helped the early colonists survive, and whose rich culture continues to add to our Nation's heritage. We also pause our normal pursuits on this day and join in a spirit of fellowship and gratitude for the year's bounties and blessings.
"Thanksgiving Day is a time each year, dating back to our founding, when we lay aside the troubles and disagreements of the day and bow our heads in humble recognition of the providence bestowed upon our Nation. Amidst the uncertainty of a fledgling experiment in democracy, President George Washington declared the first Thanksgiving in America, recounting the blessings of tranquility, union, and plenty that shined upon our young country. In the dark days of the Civil War when the fate of our Union was in doubt, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a Thanksgiving Day, calling for 'the Almighty hand' to heal and restore our Nation.
"In confronting the challenges of our day, we must draw strength from the resolve of previous generations who faced their own struggles and take comfort in knowing a brighter day has always dawned on our great land. As we stand at the close of one year and look to the promise of the next, we lift up our hearts in gratitude to God for our many blessings, for one another, and for our Nation. This Thanksgiving Day, we remember that the freedoms and security we enjoy as Americans are protected by the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces. These patriots are willing to lay down their lives in our defense, and they and their families deserve our profound gratitude for their service and sacrifice.
"This harvest season, we are also reminded of those experiencing the pangs of hunger or the hardship of economic insecurity. Let us return the kindness and generosity we have seen throughout the year by helping our fellow citizens weather the storms of our day.
"As Americans gather for the time-honored Thanksgiving Day meal, let us rejoice in the abundance that graces our tables, in the simple gifts that mark our days, in the loved ones who enrich our lives, and in the gifts of a gracious God. Let us recall that our forebears met their challenges with hope and an unfailing spirit, and let us resolve to do the same.
"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 25, 2010, as a National Day of Thanksgiving. I encourage all the people of the United States to come together -- whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place of fellowship for friends and neighbors -- to give thanks for all we have received in the past year, to express appreciation to those whose lives enrich our own, and to share our bounty with others.
"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-third day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.
"BARACK OBAMA"
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Imagine, a Holiday Just for God
Imagine, a holiday created just to honor God. I've always thought that would be neat, but imagined Christmas was the closest thing.
Turns out, Thanksgiving is such a day. Thanksgiving isn't a day to just be thankful in general, without thanking anyone in particular, but rather it is a day to give thanks, specifically, to God. Even more, it is a day to serve God.
At least that's what Thanksgiving is per George Washington's Thanksgiving proclamation given way back in 1789. See it you don't read that it is to be a day "devoted . . . to the service of that great and glorious Being."
Here's the full thought from the proclamation, so you can ensure I am not reading out of context:
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me 'to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:'
"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us."
Read through the proclamations before and since (although this was the first one by a president, there were two previous issued by the Continental Congress) and you will find time after time, God is mentioned, and we are encouraged to direct our thanks to Him, specifically.
Turns out, Thanksgiving is such a day. Thanksgiving isn't a day to just be thankful in general, without thanking anyone in particular, but rather it is a day to give thanks, specifically, to God. Even more, it is a day to serve God.
At least that's what Thanksgiving is per George Washington's Thanksgiving proclamation given way back in 1789. See it you don't read that it is to be a day "devoted . . . to the service of that great and glorious Being."
Here's the full thought from the proclamation, so you can ensure I am not reading out of context:
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me 'to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:'
"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us."
Read through the proclamations before and since (although this was the first one by a president, there were two previous issued by the Continental Congress) and you will find time after time, God is mentioned, and we are encouraged to direct our thanks to Him, specifically.
May Ours Be A Christian Nation
What of mixing religion and politics?
On the coin, it says, "In God We Trust." In the Pledge of Allegiance, we say, "one nation, under God." When taking an oath of office, the office holder often places a hand on the Bible and says, "So help me God."
George Washington, in his inaugural address, said, "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe."
Perhaps, then, when we wrestle with what separation of church and state should be, we shouldn't separate God from state. It is wise to ensure that no one religious faction controls the government, and that no single church is pronounced the official church and that the rights of all denominations -- Christian and non-Christian -- are protected, as well as those of atheists and agnostics.
I would even say it is right that no elected official should have to place his or her hand on the Bible and say, "So help me God."
But, may he or she forever have that option, and my personal hope is that he or she chooses to include God in the oath.
May everyone have the right to worship as they see fit. May Muslims and Buddhists and Jews have the same civil rights as Christians. When Muslims, or Buddhists, or Jews, or Wiccians, or atheists are elected or appointed, let's not require them to observe any Christian oath or observance. If it is a city council's practice to hold a prayer at the beginning of a meeting and if a person is elected who does not believe in God, let that person be excused from the prayer, or join the group after the prayer, or stand by with eyes open and arms unfolded -- whatever -- and let us not think it wrong or hold ill will toward that person.
But, let us not mandate God out of our government. When public officials want to turn to God, they should be allowed to do so. When they want to acknowledge Him, pray to Him, or honor Him, they should be allowed to do so.
Even more, it is my personal hope that they do. I hope ours remains a Christian nation. I hope our leaders are Christians, God fearing and God abiding, and I believe they should have the right to seek God as they carry out their official duties.
That, too, is freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion, to me, includes being able to practice religion in all settings and in all places, including in the public arena. Freedom of religion, to me, means not being forced to check it at the door. It doesn't mean religion is taboo. It means it is allowed. Simply said, freedom of religion is being able to include religion in all you do, rather than having to exclude it in certain situations.
What, then, of the Constitution, the First Amendment, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Well, to me, this only backs what I have already said. My dictionary shows the meaning of "respecting" as "concerning; about." The Constitution doesn't mandate that religion leave government. It mandates that government leave religion alone.
On the coin, it says, "In God We Trust." In the Pledge of Allegiance, we say, "one nation, under God." When taking an oath of office, the office holder often places a hand on the Bible and says, "So help me God."
George Washington, in his inaugural address, said, "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe."
Perhaps, then, when we wrestle with what separation of church and state should be, we shouldn't separate God from state. It is wise to ensure that no one religious faction controls the government, and that no single church is pronounced the official church and that the rights of all denominations -- Christian and non-Christian -- are protected, as well as those of atheists and agnostics.
I would even say it is right that no elected official should have to place his or her hand on the Bible and say, "So help me God."
But, may he or she forever have that option, and my personal hope is that he or she chooses to include God in the oath.
May everyone have the right to worship as they see fit. May Muslims and Buddhists and Jews have the same civil rights as Christians. When Muslims, or Buddhists, or Jews, or Wiccians, or atheists are elected or appointed, let's not require them to observe any Christian oath or observance. If it is a city council's practice to hold a prayer at the beginning of a meeting and if a person is elected who does not believe in God, let that person be excused from the prayer, or join the group after the prayer, or stand by with eyes open and arms unfolded -- whatever -- and let us not think it wrong or hold ill will toward that person.
But, let us not mandate God out of our government. When public officials want to turn to God, they should be allowed to do so. When they want to acknowledge Him, pray to Him, or honor Him, they should be allowed to do so.
Even more, it is my personal hope that they do. I hope ours remains a Christian nation. I hope our leaders are Christians, God fearing and God abiding, and I believe they should have the right to seek God as they carry out their official duties.
That, too, is freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion, to me, includes being able to practice religion in all settings and in all places, including in the public arena. Freedom of religion, to me, means not being forced to check it at the door. It doesn't mean religion is taboo. It means it is allowed. Simply said, freedom of religion is being able to include religion in all you do, rather than having to exclude it in certain situations.
What, then, of the Constitution, the First Amendment, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Well, to me, this only backs what I have already said. My dictionary shows the meaning of "respecting" as "concerning; about." The Constitution doesn't mandate that religion leave government. It mandates that government leave religion alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)