You Symbiotic, Patriotic Slam But Neck, Right?

Right.

The other night I tripped a nice continental drift divide and decided to write a letter to the editor of the Indianapolis Star, in response to a human who had written a letter praising Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma for working hard to reinstate a daily prayer to begin each session of business in the Statehouse. The letter-writer praised the tradition of prayer to open business in the Statehouse, and I questioned the need for that tradition. Here’s the letter (the Star edited the version they printed; this is the unedited version):

“In response to Bryan Hollingsworth's letter praising Speaker Bosma for upholding the tradition of prayer to open daily business in the Statehouse: Why is the tradition even necessary? Why do the religious feel so threatened when more well-reasoned elements in the social strata begin to marginalize religion in the public discourse? Such is the way with all superstitions; eventually, reason kicks in and the superstition is discarded. The people who are indignant about this and want prayer in the Statehouse are Christians who want Christian prayer in the Statehouse. If it were a daily prayer to Allah and a recitation from the Qur’an, there would be an outcry; if the daily prayer were a Shinto or Buddhist or Hindu prayer, there were would be an outcry. This is not about the expression of religion; it is about the continued dominance of Christianity in the public discourse. There is no majority rule in public policy with respect to religion; Christians do not get to sit at the front of the bus just because there are more of them, and they do not get to pray to their alleged savior in the arena of public policy. Science every day opens our eyes a little wider to the idea that we no longer require the crutch of religion, and every day explains more of the previously inexplicable, thereby making religion less relevant. It seems as though the true believers are terrified that religion will one day be outlawed. The Constitution forbids that, however. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was important to some people, but they also understood that it should not be thrust upon everyone.”

Today, there was a letter in the Star responding to my letter. A human from Greenwood suggested that I go to Washington, D.C., to see all the inscriptions of Christian faith in all the big government buildings. These inscriptions in Washington, she intimates, prove the grounds upon which this country was founded. Okay. Except that the word “God,” whether with a capital-G or otherwise, does not appear in the United States Constitution. Neither do the words “Jesus,” “Christ,” “creator,” “creation,” “religion,” or “religious.” The word “created” appears once in the Constitution. Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 2, says that no member of Congress will be allowed to hold civil office while also serving in Congress, regardless of whether that civil office be already in existence or newly created while the Congressman is serving. None of those words appear in the Bill of Rights; and they do not appear in any of the Amendments that follow the tenth. The values present in the law of the land may have been influenced by Christianity, but the Founding Fathers stripped all mention of it out of the written law.

Oh, and they founded our country in Philadelphia, not Washington. But, you know, the religious don’t put much store in the facts. They just point at their Bibles and say it’s in there, somewhere.

This was my whole point - today’s letter-writer seems to have missed most of it. She positively insists that this is a Christian place, these United States of America; and that is incorrect, because majority rule does not apply to a population based on how many of them adhere (however loosely) to a particular faith. I mentioned that in my letter, but the Star chose to excise that part of it. This is a country made up mostly of Christians, but it is not a Christian country. It’s a fine line, to be sure; but it’s a line that is there. A truly free country cannot be categorized by the faith of its people; to do so would invalidate the freedom. Here is my response to her response to me:

“If I may respond to Ms. ••••••, I would ask why it would be necessary for me to go to Washington in order to be inundated by her religion. I live in Indiana, where it almost feels as though one were drowing in Jesus with virtually no hope of catching even a glimpse of the life preserver of reason. The United States of America is not a Christian country. It is just a country. There is no majority rule with respect to religion; at least, there is no majority rule with respect to religion in a free country. If it were true that majority rule made this a Christian country, it would no longer be free. And it would no longer be worth living in.”

Most of what is in that response I have already mentioned in this post, but I wanted to share the letter as I submitted it to the Star, for posterity, or whatever. So that the handful of you who read this will know what I really said, if the Star prints something different. Uh...yeah. I send an echo now to the reasoned: Is there anybody out there?