If there's no truth, then what we are seeking to do right now in promoting freedom for all across the globe is the height of naivety. Not the height of arrogance mind you. After all, we are the most powerful nation in the world. In a universe without truth, there is no such thing as arrogance for those who are more powerful, only the logical assertion of dominance.
It is naive because there is no universal human yearning for freedom, which President Bush and our very Constitution presupposes as a need that all have and long to realize. But, then again, a major irony here is that many liberals who call President Bush "evil" and the war in Iraq "unjust" are many of the same who people also would like to see faith and religion compartmentalized, which are the very approaches to life and civilization which give us our modern concepts of justice and equality, right and wrong, good and evil.
Which raises for me two worries regarding the efforts on the part of a small minority of Americans who hope to use activist judges to sterilize our society from anything which smacks of faith or religion, especially, of course, if it has to do with Christianity:
- The Soviet Union tried and failed to remove all religion and faith from their society. They rounded up people of faith and put them in jail. They closed churches, mosques, and temples. And they banned faith except where it pertained to "the state." Communism was and is an experiment in "anti-democracy". The result? A government which viewed and used people as cogs, as throwaway pieces on a chess board, good only to serve the needs of the state. Even now, 15 years after the fall of communism, it seems to me that they are still a people searching for their soul. THIS is what secularists want to do in this country, use government to tell those of us whose faith is central to our lives when, where, and how we can worship the God of the universe. I don't think so.
- My second worry is this; in their zeal to save us from our "ignorant superstitions," secularists are compromising the First Amendment, which was set up to act as a restraining order against the federal government on the part of the American people. And it was intended to work just like a restraining order in that it mandated that the federal government could not do any one of three things: 1) Respect or restrict any establishment of religion, 2)Restrict the rights of those who wish to assemble peacebly in the public square, and, 3) curtail or impinge upon the media. Here's the problem. The framers of the Constitution wrote all of the federal restrictions into the Constitution as ONE SENTENCE.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment restrains the federal government from interfering with our freedom of expression. And this amendment sees freedom of the press, of peaceful assembly, and of religious expression as equally weighted. So here's the kicker; if we can now use the First Amendment as a mandate to push religion from the public square and from public institutions, we can also then use the First Amendment to push the press and our rights to peacefully assemble from the public square and our public institutions. The First Amendment was NOT constructed in such a way as to allow us to manipulate one form of expression without giving us the ability to then manipulate other protected forms of expression.
Why don't members of the MSM see this problem? Why aren't they attacking secularists for their desire to alter the basic tenets of the First Amendment, which undermines the very existence of a free press?