How can conservatives put up with their pundits, who are such self-righteous whiners?
Ironically, as Christians fight for the right to freely express their religion, they are opening up the door to free expression of other religions. After all, doesn’t the constitution guarantee the same rights to Muslims as it does for Christians?
Indeed, The Satanic Temple has requested that they be allowed to place a religious monument (which they promise will “be in good taste and consistent with community standards”) on the grounds of the Oklahoma statehouse, after the OK legislature OKed a Ten Commandments monument.
A spokesman for the Oklahoma Speaker of the House responded “Anything displayed at the Capitol should be a representation of the values of Oklahomans and this nation. The left-hand path philosophies of this organization do not align with the values of Oklahomans nor the ideals this country or its laws are founded upon.”
My question is, what does Oklahoma have against the left-handed?
8 Comments
Left hand = sinister in Latin.
I completely get the equal opportunity piece for all religions and believe it is the best way. However, IMO this situation is not an apples to apples comparison. By that I mean there was an OK religious group that wanted a monument. Fine, but the Satanic group who wants a monument is from New York. What do they have to do with Oklahoma? If they want to put one up in New York I’d be fine with that. I think locality is an issue in this case.
The problem is that any sponsorship of a specific religion over others goes against the Constitution. If OK state legislators build a Christian monument and not others, they are saying they’re a Christian government, particularly if they reject other religious monuments.
PSgt, if you follow some of the links, you would have seen that Satanic Temple, even though it is headquartered in New York, has already submitted names of multiple adherents in Oklahoma (and even Oklahoma City).
I’m not sure why the location of their headquarters matters in the least. Should Catholics not have free speech in Oklahoma because their “headquarters” is at the Vatican?
Even though there are far more Christians in Oklahoma than Satanists, the whole point of free speech protections is that they are not just for the majority. The intent of the Bill of Rights was to protect people from the majority.
Ok then in my mind it’s simple, allow all or none. It should be the rule. Every religion should have equal access to public property if at least one religious group is invited in.
IK I looked through the 2 links, but couldn’t find your reference. If it’s a sub-link then I didn’t go there. But I will take your word on it.
Patsgt, excellent conclusion, you can now get a job with the ACLU!
“Anything displayed at the Capitol should be a representation of the values of Oklahomans and this nation.” But what, pray tell, are those values, and by what right should they be put on visual display? Here’s one of the main gripes that I have with modern Republicans: They repeatedly fall victim to a combination of the ecological fallacy, fallacy of composition, and false attribution in defiance of pluralism, then they top it off with some persecutory delusions.
Whether it’s putting evolution warning stickers on biology textbooks, pushing creationism in public schools, pushing for public prayer, putting religious monuments on public grounds, or asserting the right to interfere with employees’ birth control options due to an organizational “conscience” (Hobby Lobby), there’s a common theme: The person pushing for (or defending) the public statement is almost always Republican. And the pattern goes like this: Person acquires power (either through electoral or business means) by appealing to masses, person then makes an assertion “on behalf of” his constituency, individuals raise objections, then person claims victimhood. It is worth pointing out that the person always gets power in other ways: selling sandwiches people like, running on a “let’s create jobs” platform, etc. They have the public backing for some things, but then extrapolate this to mean support for determining that group’s “beliefs” or “values.”
The point is this: It is logically fallacious to treat groups of people in the same way that you treat individuals. There will never be a universal set of values or beliefs. Any claim that you are expressing the sentiments of the entire group is inherently wrong. While I can find many instances of Republicans pushing for a statement on behalf of the whole, I do not see this happening to nearly the same extent in Democratic circles. It’s kind of ironic that the party that prides itself on “rugged individualism” tends to be the one pushing for collective religious statements that ignore the beliefs of actual individuals.
I came close to standing up in my office and applauding you, Michael.