Freedom of religion

Freedom of religion.

Do you remember the bill of rights? (And yes, the Bill of Rights; not the US Constitution).

"Freedom of religion is the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It is generally recognized to also include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion."

The original Constitution (third clause of Article 6 does mention religion but not in the way many people think);

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I have never been an Obama fan, there is no secret about that but I have to say that the man deserves the same as anyone else does when it comes to the Bill of Rights and his freedom of religion. An excerpt from his book, The Audacity of Hope:

I was not raised in a religious household. For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness. However, in her mind, a working knowledge of the world's great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology.

On Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites. In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well.

Personally, I applaud his mother for granting him such religious diversity. His mother an obviously non practicing Christian maintained a very open mind to religion. His father was a Muslim turned Atheist and his step father was an eclectic Muslim that supported Animist and Hindu beliefs. Extremely diverse when you consider the fact that Animism borders on polytheism. Though different to most, all are good and one could hardly argue that the man turned out to be any worse off for having such a diverse religious background. As an adult he was Baptized in the Trinity United Church of Christ. (Hence his pro stance on gay marriage given the fact that this church is the largest Christian denomination supporting equal marriage rights for all). In the end, he is a Christian; not a Muslim as so many ignorantly claim basing his religion on his name trying to link it unfavorable religious lineages of the current state of the world. (Such people should read a bit before the open their mouths and they would not sound so stupid).

An adult Baptized Christian is due to be inaugurated next month and concentration has swung to his inauguration prayer. In particular if the word "Jesus" will be used. Given the fact that Rick Warren (an Evangelical) is scheduled to deliver the prayer and Obama's church is of the Trinity; anything less than "in Jesus name" or "our father, the son; the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)" would be out of concession to not offend those not of his religious following making a Bill of Rights moot point.

Such concessions are appeals to those with the lowest common sensibility. Those that are offended by what everyone else in the world does, but wants the world to accept and embrace their beliefs. People like Michael Newdow who sued to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and also sued that Bush's inauguration prayer was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. People such as these can not accept the fact that of the 6,714,349,947 people on the planet; not all of them are atheists and they find comfort in their respective religions. The Bill of Rights allows Americans to express (not repress) their religious beliefs both publicly and privately. Michael Newdow will be watching the inauguration awaiting to hear key words so he can again sue alleging that open prayer endorses religions he refuses to accept. He is already trying to ban "so help me God" from the inauguration oath. (Nothing better to do I guess). What he fails to realize is the person being sworn in is asked specifically about those words as to not offend them and to recognize their religious beliefs before the oath of office is finalized. If it is not offensive to the recipient the oath is intended for, it should not be offensive to anyone. The INTENT of the oath is for the individual and no one else. An atheist being sworn in will have the option if having that statement removed. A Muslim being sworn in will have the option to have the statement modified to read "so help me Allah." (Also included in this is the ability to adjust the words "swear" and "affirm" - many times it is written as "I ______ do solemnly swear or affirm"; to respect people of varying religious backgrounds, the words "swear" and "affirm" are interchangeable. When the draft is being reviewed by the person being sworn in, they select the verbiage most suitable for them). People who are so easily offended by things that are not intended for them are of the lowest common sensibility and deserve little in terms of consideration and accommodation. He is offended by any public religious reference. He wants his lack of religion to be recognized by suppressing all religion. He is a hypocrite, and of the worst kind.

This is not to say that atheists are bad, this is to say that he is a bad atheist.

Our new President simply needs to follow the direction of his life and his beliefs and not conform to this lowest common sensibility factor. Most Christians would not have issue with a person being affirmed to office vice sworn to office. A military person who gets commissioned and opts to be affirmed does not lose his or her leadership ability. To force them to swear in oath is just as wrong as trying to force some one to not.

Of all of the things going wrong with religion today, "so help me God" in an inauguration, nor is the contemplation of if Jesus' name will be used of them. Religion for many is their freedom. Allow them to have their God(s) and their beliefs free of the persecutions that religion once held and forced the current dominations into existence. Tolerate what makes us different and embrace what makes the same. None of us are going anywhere anytime soon.

-T