Posted by
ThePuke on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:37:34 PM
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, among other things, states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I interpret this to mean that our government should be forbidden from establishing an official state church. In more recent times, though, the Supreme Court has upheld an alternative idea: namely, that the First Amendment forbids any kind of public expression of one's religion. Presumably, doing so might offend others. This is most obvious, it seems, in the month or so leading up to Christmas... sorry, I guess I should be politically correct and say "the holidays," instead of using the name of a specific religious holiday. I realized some time ago that my idea of "tolerance" is vastly different than the more modern and "P.C." flavor that we usually see.
Why is it that my Constitutionally-protected right to freely exercise my religion of choice is automatically seen by many as an attempt to infringe upon their rights or to "force my beliefs" upon them? Why have many in this nation become so acutely sensitive that the very sight of a "symbol of Christmas"—such as a Christmas tree or even the colors red and green—are seen as some sort of affront to free thought and free expression? I'm not offended in the least when a Jewish friend sends me a Hanukkah card, or when an atheist friend wishes me a "happy holiday" (or even a "merry 'x'-mas" for that matter). Should I be? If I follow the example of those who mistakenly think that the Constitution ordains a "separation of church and state," certainly. That phrase is all too often mistakenly attributed to the Constitution although it doesn't appear in that document at all. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was the first to use the term, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists written years later (Jan. 1, 1802). In that letter, it is clear that he intended the term in a completely different context than many use it today. The call to remove all signs of religion from the public forum is diametrically opposed to the obligation that Jefferson clearly thought he held to his constituents: to protect the rights of people to practice their religion in any way they wish, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others to be safe and enjoy their own freedoms.
It seems, then, that many [ostensibly] "englightened" or "modern" thinkers have as a prerequisite to their brand of "tolerance" the absence of dissenting opinions. The simple act of labeling myself a Christian—and therefore implying that I think Christianity is the "right" religion—is construed by many as "bigotry" or "intolerance." But isn't tolerance predicated on the exchange of opposing ideas? Tolerance involves the way you conduct the discussion, not refusing to acknowledge your differences in the first place. In an extremely insightful column written by Greg Koukl last week, The Intolerance of Tolerance, he explained that idea much more capably and coherently than I could ever hope to.