"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson
A growing portion of American citizens have become the epitome of a double standard. According to this growing segment of the population, there are things that must, in all cases, be accepted verbatim and then there are other things, depending on the circumstances, that are subject to interpretation in a way that supports a cause or an argument.
I would like to begin exploring this double standard with a quick review of the government documents created by our founding fathers and on which we have based our principles of governing for over 200 years.
- The Articles of Confederation- the first attempt at a constitution written at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War. It's purpose was to establish a doctrine by which the 13 colonies would be governed.
- The Declaration of Independence- the most memorable line being:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776, stating that the 13 colonies would come together and act as a Union under its own form of government and would no longer be under British rule. The document itself provided the grounds for which the 13 colonies had the right to independence by spelling out the many grievances against King George III and hence, the right to have waged a revolution..
- The Constitution of the United States- signed in 1787. The founding fathers acknowledged that the Constitution would need to be reviewed and amended over the years, and in fact, in order to gain the required number of signatures, it was agreed that a Bill of Rights would be established. This became the first set of ten amendments to the Constitution in 1791.
Although abandoned, The Articles of Confederation, especially Article III, were the underlying principles for which so much blood was shed during the Revolutionary War. In gaining freedom from the British Empire, Article III of The Articles of Confederations states:
"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."
Under Article III, the founding fathers clearly wanted to ensure that the union they formed would be one that looked out for common interests in matters of security, liberty, and general welfare with no exclusions to be made with regard to a person's religion. The first ten amendments made to The Constitution of the United States, known as The Bill of Rights, secured the original intent of Article III of The Articles of Confederation.
The First Amendment: Freedom of Expression
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."The first section of the First Amendment in regards to religion contains two parts: The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause
"The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from creating an official or established church, preferring one religion over another or benefiting believers instead of nonbelievers. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with the expression of religious beliefs."- Linda R. Monk, Words We Live By 2003 pg 128The Establishment Clause is where I lay the foundation for my argument of verbatim versus interpretation. There are two schools of thought as to what the "Establishment Clause" means. One group, predominantly Christian Americans, believes that therein lies an implication that the government must make allowances for the significant role that religion plays in a citizen's life. The other group believes in the literal interpretation that government must adhere to the separation of church and state in all matters of law. The outspoken interpretive group views the Establishment Clause to mean that religious practices (Christian) should never be excluded under any circumstances, even when it is clear that references to any holy being is essentially establishing Christianity as "the" religion of the United States. For example, "Under God" being added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954; this clearly was a violation of establishing one religion over any other in alignment with government practices and documents. It also excludes the large segment of the population that is agnostic, atheist or that practices any other form of religion. 1954 was also the year that the official motto appearing on the currency of the United States, "E Pluribus Unum", translated "Out of many, one" was changed to "In God We Trust". Under The "Free Exercise Clause" everyone is entitled to express their own religious beliefs but it does not mean government has the right to force those beliefs or show preference to those beliefs when it comes to the laws of the nation, patriotic pledges or forms of national currency.
Here is where I think there is great deal of hypocrisy comes into play. The same group that wants to loosely interpret the first amendment of The Constitution, to further their own agenda or cause, will quote scriptures from the bible verbatim and insist that the meaning of the scripture is "exactly" how it reads. If we are going to be literal, wouldn't that be judging others and their set of beliefs? What happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? This is NOT a debate over which religion is the "right" religion. To me, to do so would be an affront to every non-Christian citizen in this country. This is an example of how some very outspoken and narrow minded Christians are failing to live their lives in accordance to the gospel they so readily can recite.
Recently, there has been an ongoing controversy over the implications of building a community center that will include a prayer space on the top two floors of a 13 story building, several blocks away from Ground Zero. The builder is converting an old Burlington Coat Factory location, abandoned for over 9 years after a landing gear from one of the planes fell through the roof. The site is located in a former retail trade area heavily impacted by the damage and debris from the attack on the towers and has remained a virtual ghost town. The community center will not have a view of Ground Zero, nor will the view from Ground Zero include the community center. The controversy arises over several key issues, most of which are protected under the first amendment of the Constitution. Also important to point out is that the definition of a Mosque is a place dedicated solely to worship. This community center will have a culinary school, basketball courts and other activities open to all NY residents. Coincidentally, there is a mosque within four blocks of "Ground Zero" that has been in existence, without incident, since before the towers were built.
I want to emphasize that on September 11, 2001, people of ALL nationalities and religions lost their lives in the WORLD Trade Center attack, as well those who perished when one of the planes hit the Pentagon and when the fourth plane went down in Pennsylvania. Additionally, first responders of all nationalities and religions, including Muslim Americans, risked their lives to come to the aid of those trapped in the towers. Many of those first responders lost their lives in their heroic effort to save others without thought of their race or religious beliefs. The United States is a melting pot of people of different races and religions. The generalizations and religious intolerance goes against everything Christians are supposed to stand for in terms of morality and human decency. People fled from the British Empire and still flee other countries because of persecution for their beliefs. American soldiers have fought many wars to guarantee our freedom to believe without fear of persecution. So why is there so much demagoguery by the far right? By virtue of all the conspiracy stories going around, our President is not a Christian but instead a secret Muslim. It begs the question of "WHO CARES?" The President is guaranteed the same right to his own beliefs just as any other citizen in this country. Is it not hypocritical to judge him as "unfit" because of what his religious beliefs are or are not? I haven't read anywhere in the Constitution that a prerequisite for being a Presidential candidate is that the person must be a proclaimed and verified Christian. It can't become a matter of convenience to chose which things are to be followed verbatim and which can be freely interpreted to suit a cause or belief.
The first amendment upholds the right for this community center to be built anywhere in the United States, including the proposed site, as long as the proper permits have been granted and the building codes are enforced. What person or government entity has the right to say a community center with a prayer space is inappropriate or a slap in the face of the victims, their families and the survivors of 9/11? Muslims didn't fly planes into those buildings. Islamic extremists carrying out a terrorist act flew the planes into the buildings. With this mentality and line of reasoning, all Jews should have the right to restrict all Germans and German/Americans from building or opening a business in the vicinity or radius of a synagogue. It is the same as generalizing that all Germans and German/Americans are Nazis or Nazi supporters.
This has got to end. This racial profiling and fear-mongering to get the majority of Americans to believe that they need to be suspicious and/or question the intentions of anyone of the Muslim faith is not only making Americans look hypocritical but even worse, prejudiced and prone to inciting violence. Extremists can take on many forms and act in the name of many different gods and causes. Need we be reminded of Timothy McVeigh, who committed the deadliest act of terrorism on American soil prior to September 11th? 168 innocent lives were lost in the Oklahoma City bombing when an American citizen wanted retribution for the lives lost during the Waco Siege.
No comments:
Post a Comment