Through the course of my de-conversion I never gave much thought to issues that others within the non-theistic community felt important. It may be that because my journey took over 10 yrs (and still continues) and, was very personal; my outrage was more doctrinal and dogmatic. My questioning more philosophical (if that's the correct word to use). Many of my family and friends did not know that I was questioning my faith or that my world view was evolving; it was a solitary journey done with little external support. There were many nights of sitting alone looking for answers, my faith did not disappear quietly.
I digress a moment for reasons unknown, catharsis perhaps?
What made me realize the error in my thinking was the following podcast Podcast #118 – Dave Silverman (President, American Atheists). Overall nothing extraordinary was said; it wasn't until about half way through the podcast that Silverman said something that made me realize how wrong I have been.
I wont get into too much detail here, but the two of the court cases being discussed were the Kentucky Homeland Security lawsuit and the Utah Highway Patrol/Utah Highway Patrol Association's lawsuit. You can read more about them here and here.
What Silverman said I paraphrased below:
When these type of laws come into play, we have to fight them or they become precedent; the next steps will go further still. The Religious Right has been playing a game of baby steps since the 1950's when the phrase "one nation under God" was placed in the pledge and when "in God we trust" was placed on our money. Those few words are the bases of all these other laws because everyone thinks they are supposed to be there. These things have to be fought and fought on a regular basis, whenever the government endorses a religion by force, which is what they are doing. [The thought that crossed my mind when I heard this part of the podcast: "my god can beat up your god" which screams religious zealotry, isn't that what got us in the mess we are in to begin with?]
,,,if, as they state, the cross is NOT a christian symbol, ONLY being used as a SECULAR memorial applicable to ALL (known as secularization of the cross) then they (the state of Utah) do not have to be concerned with equal access or the first amendment; they can be placed wherever they want. These NOW secular monuments may be placed on public lands without constitutional issues.
{The gist of this case comes down to the using of deceased police officers as a shield so they can get the cross declared secular. As Silverman states, it is an ugly side of Christianity.]
If the state of Utah doesn't want to secularize the cross, they can allow other religious monuments or a different kind, if they do then our case is dead. The reason they won't do that is this case has nothing to do with fallen state troopers, but using dead troopers to protect their efforts to secularize the cross so they can put it on public land without worrying about constitutional issues.
[Another point that Silverman made was concerning criticism of recent lawsuits.]
These are valid and important, not useless lawsuits. They have ramifications, win or lose. If we lose, new law has been established to back up old practices. The battles must be chosen wisely.
Will I now become a citizen activist? Probably not. But it will make me pay attention to the world we live in.
[I highly recommend you give this cast a listen, a good primer on what the legal battles are all about.]
No comments:
Post a Comment