A New Idea

By Michael The Libertarian

I have been pondering this for quite some time. My nom de plume is sort of defining, but then again, it's not. Where I stand on issues may not be easily discernible; nor should it be since we're not supposed to judge people based upon a group to which they belong.

True enough, a political association is a conscious decision, but not every member of a group shares all the views of the group, at large. I personally know pro-life Democrats. I know Republicans that support gun grabbing, in its entirety. I know Libertarians that oppose the legalization of marijuana.

So, maybe it's time I spell out what I believe about certain issues. I hope you agree, 'cause that's what I am going to do. I have a couple of “rounds (ideas) in the magazine (my head bone)”, but I will rely on you, my readers, to tell me what you'd like to hear next.

So … without further ado:

What I Believe About Freedom of Religion

This is an issue that is a “hot button”, these days There are so many who claim to be “offended” just by being “forced” to view a religious symbol; whether that be a cross, somewhere on public land or a manger scene or even, a dedication plaque on a park bench that mentions (*gasp*): God.

As with all discussions, I think it is important to define some terms (at least how I will be using them):

Theist: Any person who has or expresses a belief in a deity.

Atheist: Any person who has or expresses a lack of belief in any deity.

Anti-theist: Any person who has, expresses or shows by their actions an opposition to any religion, right up to the point of espousing a desire to eliminate all religions.

Our founders, for the most part were Theists. Some ran all the way down to “Deist”, but even that is a belief, to some degree, in a deity. They were forward-thinking enough to spell out what they thought should be the place for religion in our society.

They specifically said that government could not establish a religion that Americans must follow. They also said government could not prohibit how religions were practiced. Fairly simple, sane ideas.

One of the reasons for that protection, particularly the non-establishment part, was because some of our Founding Fathers were, themselves, non-believers at the time of the writing of the constitution and they believed if government established a religion, they would be amongst the first to experience issues with the new government. Yes, I'm referencing rumors (that, to my mind, have been proven) about Thomas Jefferson.

When we examine what that means in today's world, it's important to go back, a few decades or so, in history.

While early on, there was some stigma associated with not belonging to a Protestant faith, through the years, that stigma was eroded to the point where it was almost non-existent.

Town Squares had Christmas displays. Then, Jewish people came along and said: “How about Hanukkah?”. Those displays were added. In fact, any religious group that wanted “representation” in the town square, during certain holiday seasons, were free to erect a display.

Religious groups of any stripe could “rent” town or county resources in parks for get togethers, where they would have the ability to ask people not associated with their group to not use the bar-b-cue or certain tables or be under the gazebo. No conflicts. Atheists just realized that if they wanted to rent the same facilities (on a different day), they'd be allowed to also.

Atheists don't find belief in a religion (by others) to be some manner of subliminal attack upon their own (non)belief. By-and-large, they find belief in religion to be “silly”, “unscientific”, or “for the weak”. That's fine. That's their right and no one (for the most part) is trying to change their minds.

Then, along come the Anti-theists; the freedom from religion crowd. They would like it if they could go through life without ever seeing any sign of religion what-so-ever. By their own admission, they find outward signs of Theism to be offensive. I, myself, have been asked to not bless myself and put my hands together, when saying “grace” in a restaurant.

This person (and ostensibly, their entire table) felt my actions were “offensive” to them.

Hmmmm … that seems to be the “standard”, these days. I won't go into great detail about this and I won't post what I'm about to reference, here and now, but take a few minutes to go and search: “Stephen Fry offended”. For those who don't know him: Stephen Fry is a British comedic actor, writer, producer, and (I believe) an artist who is gay and therefore, ranks fairly high on the “Victim hood scale” to which some who engage in identity politics seem to lend credence.

For my part, I found the people at the other table to be a bit rude, interrupting my hot meal to try to impose their values on to me. I guess, if I wanted to adopt their tactics, I was “offended” by their actions.

There has to be some way that instead of an all-out assault against any outward signs of Theism, which seems to be acceptable … some might say a default position … we find some way to return to tolerance.

Let's examine: removal of all religious displays from town squares, as an example.

The Constitutionalist in me says: “Okay. Fair enough. I get it.” Then, I think: “How long before we see a petition/lawsuit claiming that Anti-theists shouldn't be 'forced' to look at a cross on top of a church or a manger scene, right near the public sidewalk?”

I'll go out on a limb and say we will see something like that in less than three years.

It would be easy for me, a Theist, to declare that any outward expression for disdain of a deity is offensive to me. If I do, I would be pelted with claims of my faith being weak and statements of that nature, but what does that say of the people who find my belief so troubling? Is their “faith” that a deity does not exist so tenuous that they need to eradicate any sign of it? Why?

Lastly, if push-comes-to-shove, I believe the constitution comes down on the side of: I have a RIGHT to believe how I wish and to express that belief in any way that is not truly damaging to others. I also believe it comes down on the side of: You don't have a RIGHT to never be offended.

- Michael

I can be found on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (older material)