Tag Archives: religion

We The People

Posted on by
Comment

A few choice Amendments from the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, for those who care about freedom. I added the italics.

Article I (The First Amendment)

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.

Article IV (The Fourth Amendment)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V (The Fifth Amendment)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI (The Sixth Amendment)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?

Posted on by
1

Another example of the religious right taking offense at nothing.

I was born and raised Catholic. I don’t practice it these days, but I still consider myself “Christian.” The winter solstice holiday I celebrate is Christmas.

Almost every year, I send out Christmas cards. Well, to be fair, they’re not all Christmas cards. Some of them are holiday cards. Because not all of my friends celebrate Christmas. Some of them are Jewish and celebrate Chanukah. And I’ll admit that I’m not even sure what some of them celebrate because I don’t go around asking my friends about their religion.

I have a collection of Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays cards. I send them out primarily based on the picture on the card or the sentiment inside the card. I don’t, however, send a Merry Christmas card to someone who I know is Jewish. Or someone who might be Jewish. I do this out of respect for their religious beliefs. After all, why should I wish them a Merry Christmas — a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, who isn’t anyone terribly special to them — when I could wish them a Happy Holidays?

I guess what I’m trying to say here is that the wish I’d like to share is for a happy and healthy holiday season. Isn’t that what we all wish everyone this time of year?

Now I’m definitely not a supporter of George Bush Jr. In fact, I don’t like him at all. But I think he’s taking a lot of undeserved grief with the White House Christmas card debate. I think the card is fine — a Happy Holidays wish covers everyone, without offending anyone. Christmas is a Christian holiday. Not everyone who received the card is Christian. Why should it wish everyone a Merry Christmas? And what the hell is wrong with a Happy Holidays wish?

Come on guys. Is it really that important? Don’t you think homelessness, unemployment, and hunger within this country are more important than the words that appear on a White House Christmas (or Holiday) card? Yet I don’t hear any of the religious right whining about any of that.

And, for the record, it is a Christmas tree. Sheesh. What other holiday puts a pine tree (or a fake pine tree) in people’s living rooms every December?

Reason Triumphs

Posted on by
Comment

The Scopes III trial ends.

From the New York Times:

HARRISBURG, PA., Dec. 20 – A federal judge ruled today that it is unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because intelligent design is a religious viewpoint that advances “a particular version of Christianity.”

Thank heaven! (Pun intended.) I was beginning to think the country was regressing back to a 21st century version of the Dark Ages.

I have all kinds of respect for people’s religious beliefs. Religion is important to many people. It forms the bedrock of their personal belief systems and guides their everyday actions. But when religious beliefs contradict science, I’m on the side of science.

It doesn’t bother me to imagine that I’m the product of millions of years of evolution. It doesn’t bother me to know that one of my ancestors was a squiggly thing in the ocean and another was an ape-like creature that couldn’t stand quite upright. Science has produced all kinds of theories that make evolution feasible and there is enough evidence to satisfy me. Evidently, there’s enough evidence to satisfy a judge, too.

We should be teaching science in public schools, not religion. Religion should be taught at home and at church and at church-sponsored education, like Sunday School. Parents and religious leaders are better suited to answering questions about religion. Science teachers are better suited for answering questions about science. It makes sense.

Of course, I do have a good friend who believes that the earth is only 7,000 years old. (I think that’s his number.) It doesn’t matter that there’s all kinds of scientific evidence to prove that it’s billions of years old. My friend says 7,000 years and he truly believes it. That’s part of his religion. And who am I to tell him he’s wrong?

Not a science teacher.

Anyway, I’m not surprised that the trial ended the way it did. It makes sense to me. But Mike said tonight at dinner that he was relieved. Relieved? How could it not end on the side of reason? How could a government built upon separation of church and state settle for anything less?