“’In God We Trust’ I don’t believe it would sound any better
if it were true” –Mark Twain
While searching for relevant articles regarding the upcoming
elections, I was struck by this article in The Statesman called “Texas a Battleground for Church and State Issues.” Never mind that the words “Texas”
and “Battleground” have not been in the same sentence while talking about
elections in my entire life. What bothers me about the content of the article
is not that people have faith in religion and wish to express their feelings,
what bothers me is the clear attempt by people to falsify history. They claim
this country as being founded as a Christian Nation and they wish to assert
faith into government, schools, and town meetings. For example, some town hall
meetings are opened with prayer, and often even have a pastor or priest leading
in the prayers. I could spend a large portion of this editorial disproving this
assertion that America was founded a Christian Nation with hundreds of quotes,
letters, articles, and historical documents. This would be a waste of time. However
I would rather cut to a deeper implication that is hinted at every time I hear
this argument as being founded by a Christian Nation. It seems that some
religious people are of the belief that non-believers wish to take their
religion or religious freedoms away. When in reality non-believers just want it
understood that public money has no business being used for any religion, ever.
Many politicians are religious, which is not the issue at hand. The issue comes
into play when dictating policies. Some politicians go so far as to cite the
bible as reason for policy (global warming, abortion, education), in place of
scientific evidence. Rick Perry himself claims that separation of church and
state is the work of Satan which begs the question, how many day to day
decisions does he make for all Texans that involve his fear
of Satan? While I whole heartedly believe that people have a right to believe
in anything they wish, they do not have the right to make public policy based
off of their religious belief. Perry
goes on to claim, “Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and
one of the untruths out there that is driven is that people of faith should not
be involved in the public arena”. Perry misses the obvious point that there is
no evidence of Satan running anywhere, nor is known how fast or slow Satan does
run. Governor Perry makes the blatantly false accusation that he or anyone for
that matter is under threat of having their beliefs taken away. Over 90 percent
of Texans are a variation of Christianity, while less than 5 percent are
nonbelievers. This claim that Christian Texans are under threat by secularist
is nonsensical. The United States is unique in that it has an amendment that
goes out of its way to clarify that no law shall be made respecting a religion
or prohibiting one. I should point that if people feel so strong about living
in a religious country that is founded on and whose laws are based off
religion, they should think of relocating to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan
which are all countries who enforce laws based off the religion of the majority.
The point of the first amendment was that people are able to practice whatever
belief that they would like and the state would not take sides nor persecute
those that are in the minority.
The Ears have been listening and I must say what they hear is quite interesting. DW signing on here with what I hope is a transcendentally titillating commentary on work by colleague Daniel Payne of Manufacturing Texas. Mr. Payne brings up an interesting point in his article (hyper-linked over yonder). The issue of religions' pervasiveness in our history, despite my own views, is unavoidable. Up until a certain point in our recent history the majority of cultures and societies seem to have been founded with some kind of God fearing majority holding sway. That said, as Mr. Payne points out, this is not our primary focus. What appears to be the focus, if I am understanding what you (Mr. Payne) are saying, is more of an issue you have with religious rhetoric. I believe you're looking at religious rhetoric and thinking that it actually has meaning. While I would immensely enjoy the comfort that having a politician say what he means would provide I recognize this not to be so. I whole-heartedly believe that Governor Perry is talking out of his ass. He knows his constituents (how can he not, he's been in office for so long). He is like a circus ringleader ramping up a crowd before a freak show. He knows what buttons to push, what levers to pull, and in what order. The way he parses his languages is incidental in this case. I would hardly get my feathers ruffled at the swearing of oaths upon the bibles, the abdication of our destinies to God embossed into our coins, or the fact that the President (whom I like) ends some speeches with "God Bless." It's just rhetoric and most of the time I believe it to be just that. It must be picked apart and chopped down to understand the true meaning
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say, however, that I believe all rhetoric is just harmless rhetoric. I find it truly fearful when you find people who believe their own extreme language (which they may have learned by example or may genuinely believe - lets look to Mr. Green for example here). It is difficult to tell if these people are entrenched in their own delusions and truly believe what they are saying or if they are high-commitment con-artists. Language and ideas are dynamic reflections of each other. Language affects ideas and ideas affect language. This brings us to the question - at what point is the way you have framed your ideas (the language you use to give them shape and form; moving from the abstract to the concrete) detrimentally affecting the idea itself. This is a question that would do well to be applied to more than just ridiculous political rhetoric.
Unfortunately, I believe there is a threshold for attention and I must bring this to conclusion. All-in-all I believe that this article pertains mostly to meaningless rhetoric; however, I think that language we (as humans) choose our words, both consciously and subconsciously, and I find that people, if they listen, can often determine what another person is really thinking by listening to their word choice when they are speaking comfortably (not in a speech setting). This kind of attention can often lead to terrifying realizations. You may actually hear what a person is saying - the effect can be sobering.
This is DW, signing off!