More Pointless BS from DC

H.Con.Res. 13 is up before the House of Representatives.  This proposal, with 66 co-sponsors, seeks to allow government buildings and public institutions (including schools) to be plastered with "In God We Trust".  Let us see what is in this very much needed proposal, shall we?

The overall goal is stated as, "Reaffirming `In God We Trust' as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions."

Here's their confounding arguments why:

Whereas `In God We Trust' is the official motto of the United States; 
Not before 1956.  How short-term is this right-wing pundit memory of theirs that we have to keep reminding them of that fact.  The injustices of the McCarthy era weren't justified then, and they're not justified now.  These days, instead of a big "fuck you" to Russia and the scary Communists of the world, they want to give the finger to Muslims and us non-religious types.  It may be "official" but that doesn't make it right.  Besides that, do you really need to be reminded that you trust God so badly the phrase be everywhere?

Whereas the sentiment, `In God We Trust', has been an integral part of United States society since its founding;
What this issue (and all the others like it) really comes down to is the incorrect assumption that the God of our deist founders equals the God of the Christian bible.  As I've explained many times before, many of our founders didn't believe in a personal god, and they certainly didn't believe in Jesus's Daddy.  The vagueness of the word "God" makes it easier to spread this religion, because it generalizes the idea of deities.  Thus, if a man 200 years ago says something about "God", people 4000 years from now can interpret it by the God of their understanding.  Simply, our founders weren't talking about YOUR god when they referenced "our Creator" (read: nature).

Whereas in times of national challenge or tragedy, the people of the United States have turned to God as their source for sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction; 
In times of great strife, people turn to whomever they can to seek help.  But let's look at the facts: God didn't send people into the burning World Trade towers to get people out.  God didn't send food, medical supplies, and water to Sudan or New Orleans.  God didn't send aid to Japan, and God didn't take down the Tucson shooter.  However you want to define it, "God" hasn't helped with any national challenge or tragedy.  People have.  Humans provide sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction.  It's demonstrable.  And even though many do look toward a higher power for those things, they don't all turn to YOUR God.  So presupposing that all Americans trust in YOUR God is arrogantly presumptions.

Whereas the Declaration of Independence recognizes God, our Creator, as the source of our rights, `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 isn't a founding document.  It could say, "Jesus Christ is the nation's Lord Almighty" and it wouldn't matter.  This nation was founded based on secular documents meant to keep the government out of everyone's personal beliefs.  But again, that Creator they're talking about isn't the biblical God.  It's the idea of how humans arrived (again, read: nature).

Whereas the national anthem of the United States says `praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation . . . and this be our motto: in God is our trust.'; 
The motto could be, "We are a White Nation" and it wouldn't be true nor accurate.  And it wouldn't matter if it were our national government-approved motto because again, it may be official but that doesn't make it okay.  That's why we try to put away official ideas when we realize they're not honorable (slavery, anyone?).

Whereas the words `In God We Trust' appear over the entrance to the Senate Chamber and above the Speaker's rostrum in the House Chamber;
It doesn't matter how many injustices they cite, they're still trying to inject religious beliefs into government -- our collective government.  Government isn't a private business that can reserve the right to serve who they like.

Whereas the oath taken by all Federal employees, except the President, states `I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'; 
The phrase, "so help me God" is purely optional, as mandated by Article IV, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution.  It doesn't matter what imaginary being someone wants to seek help from to tell the truth or uphold an oath to.  And what if the "God" someone swears by are the Pseudologoi?  How would you know?

Whereas John Adams said, `Statesmen may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.'; 
Those who would think that their God is the god of everyone in America also think that morality comes from God.  Morality isn't the property of, nor authored by, religion, and it certainly holds no monopoly over it.  It's demonstrable that non-religious people are quite capable of being moral.

Whereas if religion and morality are taken out of the marketplace of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured; 
Our Constitution makes it clear that government is meant to stay out of religion for the sake of freedom.  Do you really want the government to start endorsing religion?  It might seem great, but which religion?  You can't get members of the SAME CHURCH to agree on everything, so how do you propose we get government to do it?  How free do you think we'd be if, say, they started plastering buildings with Mormon ideals (like God punishes people by darkening their skin)?  Even if they keep the vague "God" sense, there comes a point when their God isn't your God anymore, but government's claws are in too deep. I'm an atheist and don't think religion is a good thing, but I wouldn't want my government telling a religious person how to worship.  Freedom is the distance between Church and State, for ALL OUR SAKES.  I see this Whereas as saying "if you don't have God then you don't have morality, and we can't guarantee your Freedom of Speech or your protection under the Fourth Amendment".

Whereas as President Eisenhower said and President Ford later repeated, `Without God, there could be no American form of government, nor, an American way of life.';  and
Whereas President John F. Kennedy said, `The guiding principle and prayer of this Nation has been, is now, and ever shall be `In God We Trust.'
It wouldn't matter if the current president said, "Those who have no God should be shot".  If these clowns would read the Constitution and the words of those who helped create it, they'd see the reasons for keeping religion out of a secular government.

So to recap:

1. "God" doesn't always mean your god, and for our government to assume so makes us all look like asses.
2. Government is meant to be kept separate from religion.  You don't want Washington telling you what prayer to use over dinner, and I don't want my public school to feature a prominent statue of Brahma.
3. Presidents and other members of government can be as religious as they want, as long as they leave their religion at the door when making policy that affects our nation (roughly sixty million of which aren't Christians).

The House needs to kill this bill.  Get in touch with your representative today and politely let them know -- even if you're a Christian -- that this type of legislation doesn't' belong in a government of our kind, and that you support everyone's right to see God how they want to.

If you want to go further, write them a snail mail letter (sometimes more effective than an email) and tell them how you would instead like to restore "E Pluribus Unum" as our national motto, because it more accurately reflects America: "Out of Many, One".


-STA

Get Back To The True Meaning

Every year America is inundated with pleas from the Christian populace to cast off the secular traditions and once again return to the true meaning of Christmas.

If only they'd study a little history.


Origins of Christmastime
Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25.  Saturnus, the god of seed and sowing, was honored with a festival.  During this time the Roman courts were closed, law was lifted, and the social order was inverted.  Slaves didn't have to work, banquets were held, and all seriousness was essentially barred.  There were gifts given and informal dress with felt hats (normally used by slaves) were worn to symbolize the freedom of the celebration.

It was an occasion for jubilation, visits to friends, and the presentation of gifts. Slaves were treated as equals, allowed to wear their masters' clothing, and be waited on at meal time in remembrance of an earlier golden age thought to have been ushered in by the god Saturn.  Lucian of Samosata wrote, "Drinking, noise and games and dice, appointing of kings and feasting of slaves, singing naked, clapping of frenzied hands, an occasional ducking of corked faces in icy water—such are the functions over which I preside."  The Saturnalia continued to be celebrated as Brumalia, the winter solstice, down to the Christian era, when its rituals had become absorbed in the celebration of Christmas (just as the festival of the Germanic goddess Eastre).

The Real Reason
When I was a Christian, I despised what I saw as the corruption and commercialization of my Lord's birthday by the evils of Walmart, Target, and Santa Claus (who I saw as a way of getting Christ's message across to heathens).  Now that I actually looked into a bit of history surrounding the time, it's clear that we're not too far off from the "original meaning".  I admit that I was an ignorant theist, as I think many today are; they don't want to learn anything past Jesus.  They don't realize that centuries of time, traditions, and practices came before the third century!  Just as with Christmas, they stop at 4AD and refuse to accept that gods like Mithra, Horace, Dionysus, Osiris, and lots of others all call that date their birthday.

Traditions get taken over as ideas slowly change.  As the culture changes, you either adopt the new traditions by relating to them in some way, or you ignore them outright.  I find it amusing that the pagan influences are still wrapped around the Christian face of the holiday. Jeremiah 10:2-4 warns not to put up what we today call a Christmas tree.  And yet how many Christians have a tree in there house right now?  Like I said, you go with the flow and change the meanings to fit your own tastes and beliefs or you die by the wayside.  Our contemporary traditions are just as much the "true meaning" as any.

The fact is, the season is the reason for the season; it's the winter solstice.  We must realize that feasts and festivals in honor of to the gods and forces of the seasons have existed for millenia.  In our modern times of abundance and prevalence of food (the fact that you can get strawberries in the winter, etc.), in a way removes the reasons for many of our traditional holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Thus, we're free to "celebrate" whatever we want.  If you want to view Christmas as a celebration of the hope of the next spring, go for it.  If you want to see it as another chance to spend time with loved ones, be my guest.  If you want to think that it's the day your god was born or as a festival to one of the many fertility gods, that's fine too.  Whatever reason you decide the season is for, just make sure to eat, drink, and be merry -- and don't force your practices on everyone else.

And have a wonderful Christma-Hanu-Rama-Ka-Dona-Kwanzaa-Wali-Solstice!


-STA

Obama Not Concerned with Praying

It seems that this year's annual trampling of church-state separation known as the "National Day of Prayer" was basically skipped by the nation's current President. The Obamas opted to observe the "holiday" in private (as he should according to his religion). For the first time in nearly two decades the White House declined to participate in the Congressionally-authorized mental jerkfest beyond issuing the standard proclamation.

Yay.

Obama's toned-down stance earned him big points with us secularists. Along with his measures to stop federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education for teens and replace it with funding for “scientifically accurate” teen pregnancy approaches, and his stance on placing stronger a emphasis on science, not to mention lifting the ban on stem-cell research -- he's shaping up to undo a lot of the evils of the previous eight years.

Of course, President Obama did sign a proclamation recognizing the National Day of Prayer, as presidents before him have done for over half a century.

Small steps, I guess.


-STA

Through the Fire

After pointing out how immoral an all-powerful, all-loving God that doesn't remove human suffering would be, I received this quote from a recent disputant:

"Diamond cannot be polished without friction. Gold cannot be purified without fire. Trials and suffering makes you a better person."

I must admit that at first I was at a loss for words. Then I realized where the problem lay: an obfuscation of terms.

A Value Judgment
What does "better" mean in that context? Sure, in some sense it's true that overcoming adversities builds character. Is a person's character what we're talking about here? Is the inherent complex of attributes that determine a person's moral and ethical actions and reactions what is being referred to? If so, we can substitute that in and again ask the question: Does suffering build character?

As I said, in some sense yes, but we are again dealing with ambiguity, for what type of "suffering" are we talking about? Does stubbing your toe constitute a notch-up in moral character? What about true suffering...what about starving because you're too poor to purchase food? How does that build character? Does it make you a stronger, more resourceful individual because you have to find alternate was of getting fed? Most importantly, why does this particular "trial" a necessity from an all-loving God?


Betterment Without Horrid Suffering
As I see it, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God could find a way to -- if not completely remove suffering and misery altogether -- at the very least lessen it. Why must humanity suffer so much? The more you suffer, the better you are? I don't see how that argument is cogent in the least. If your loving god requires affliction and suffering from his sheep, then count me among the goats.





-STA