Protecting the First Amendment

Lately I have become more and more concerned about the viability of the First Amendment to our constitution.  Although a little voice of caution has whispered in my ear for many years, I never paid much attention, believing the First Amendment was virtually immune to political attacks from the right or left.         

Recent events, however, have elevated my level of concern to frightening heights.  The last few years seem to show that the unthinkable can in fact happen.  From universal government-run medical care to federal bureaucrats who are openly sympathetic to Chinese despots and South American Castro clones, from government takeovers of major U.S. corporations, to politically favored unions that blatantly threaten with violence, those who dare to disagree, from laws that aren’t read by legislators until they’re passed, to elected officials who predict rape and pillage if their policies aren’t accepted, the unthinkable is becoming a daily occurrence.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not worried about the government abridging free speech. One look at the occupying forces in our major cities and their incoherent demands has convinced me that free speech is safe.  No matter how crazy the speech, it appears it’s OK with just about everyone in the ruling elite.  Only beleaguered citizens who must live and work in close proximity to the odiferous demonstrators seem to be concerned.  What I’m really worried about, though, is Congress establishing a state religion. 

It may sound far-fetched, but then who would have thought the confirmation of key administration officials by the Senate could have been so easily circumvented by a bewildering array of czars whose numbers dwarf the virility of the Romanoff dynasty?

While surfing the web last week, I stumbled across a site managed by the Religious Tolerance Education Association.  There I found an analysis of the characteristics “most of the leading religions throughout history have shared.”  That’s when I started getting seriously scared.  Perhaps the fear of a state religion isn’t far-fetched after all.

Now I must admit our courts have been exceptionally diligent in protecting citizens from obvious abuse by privately organized religion.  Great care has been taken to guard the psychological well-being of unsuspecting persons who might turn a corner in a public park and be blatantly confronted with a list of the Ten Commandments.  The courts have jealously protected the rights of citizens who might be irreparably offended by a carelessly muttered prayer, or a provocative reference to the Supreme Being at a school assembly or city council meeting.  At the risk of entertaining a potentially criminal thought, however, it occurs to me that the log in the eye of our elected and appointed representatives may be affecting their perception of reality.  While aggressively pursuing the treachery of privately organized religion, they may be missing something far more dangerous, the establishment of a state religion by our government.

Just so we’ll have something to call it, let’s refer to this state religion as, I don’t know, how about Secular Humanism.  We can always change it later.  After all, I’m learning that simply giving something a different name does in fact make it different.

OK, let’s see how Secular Humanism stacks up against the characteristics of religions throughout history:

Characteristic 1:  Belief in a deity or in a power beyond the individual.

We know of course, believing in a deity doesn’t fit today’s political environment, but what about a power beyond the individual?  You can hardly have a conversation with a big government booster these days without encountering the word “community”.  I’ve never been sure if communities are geographically, ethnically or God forbid (if you’ll pardon the deity reference) politically organized.  Either way, I’ve been told on the best of authority that parents (individuals) are no longer qualified to raise children, that it takes a “village”.  Is that word sometimes interchangeable with community?  Let’s take a leap of faith (there I go again) and say it’s the same thing.  That could be Secular Humanism’s power beyond the individual.

Characteristic 2:  A doctrine (accepted teaching) of salvation.

Despite our sometimes misguided obstinacy, we are counseled by our betters in the establishment that whatever the problem, government has the answer.  While we foolishly cling to our anachronistic beliefs in personal independence, hard work and the selfish concept that we should benefit from our efforts, the government doggedly tries to enlighten us to the self evident doctrine that spending the money they confiscate from us is the only way to salvation.  That’s a doctrine of salvation alright, it fits like a glove.

Characteristic 3:  A code of conduct.

This one’s easy.  The code of conduct is political correctness supplemented by the “spread the wealth” concept.  Of course, the clergy of Secular Humanism are exempt from this code of conduct, but then that’s frequently the case in many of today’s organized religions.

Characteristic 4:  The use of sacred stories

Sacred stories are generally not required to be historically factual.  They depend more on the faith of the listener than the veracity of the storyteller.  It seems that Secular Humanism is replete with such fact-challenged sacred stories.  Here are just a few examples:  There’s always the Patriarch, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican politician who was actually a closet Democrat, fearlessly freeing the slaves and allowing them to stem declining enlistment numbers by forming segregated black units with white officers.  Don’t forget Saint Roosevelt, who didn’t prolong the depression but actually shortened it with major deficit spending, a long list of hastily organized bureaucracies and a blatant attempt to politically reorganize the Supreme Court.  My favorite tales tell of God-fearing Democrats in congress whose segregationist committee chairmen passed landmark Civil Rights Legislation without a single Republican vote and Bishop Clinton who bravely created a budget surplus despite the opposition of congressional Republicans who insisted on spending more money.  We mustn’t forget the Blessed Frank and Dodd who made home ownership, no matter how temporary, available to all.  You can clearly see how these sacred stories still inspire a palpable religious fervor in true believers.

Characteristic 5:  Religious rituals

We’re fortunate to have a recent example of this characteristic.  Today’s righteous Wall Street demonstrators and their civil disobedience rituals actually date back to the sacred '60s.  The always impressive ritual of accusing the opposition of wanting to starve children, separate the offspring of illegal immigrants from their parents and the ever popular rite of pushing a senior citizen in a wheelchair off a cliff, stand as clear examples of ceremonial activities that represent religious zeal justified by a worthy cause.

The one element missing in this scenario is an actual law establishing a state religion, and in all fairness, the First Amendment does specifically mention a law.  We must, nonetheless, admire how much the devotees of this religion have been able to accomplish without a law, but can a law be far behind?  Such a law will never be titled “Creation of a State Religion”, but will probably be titled a “Job Creation Emergency Appropriation."  Chills run up my leg when I think of how many union positions would be necessary to administer a state religion.  If the past is prologue, it could happen so smoothly, we won’t even know a religion has been established until everybody reads about it, after the bill has been passed.

Now that I think of it, however, I’m probably being paranoid.  I’m often told I need to be more accepting, while enthusiastically embracing hope and change.  Some people say I’ll never be able to do that, but in the last few years, I’ve been trying to cheerfully respond, “Yes, I can.” The truth is, I’m really trying to do better, so let’s just forget the whole thing.