"First, most of the people at the ceremony were Christians."
So? By that logic, if most of the people were physically fit then they could do group jumping jacks. Never mind the fat people and the paraplegics, they can sit it out. Who cares if it makes them uncomfortable if we impose a structured event on the assemblage that they won't be taking part in. We're the majority.
"Second, usually the Lord's Prayer in its shorter version is not even found offensive by members of the other great monotheistic religions." (bold mine)
First, you've already limited it to monotheistic religions, so Hindus for example are S.O.L. Second, saying that something "usually" doesn't offend someone does not really speak to virtue. Personally I would rank that more toward the "damning with faint praise" end of the spectrum.
"Third, the young man and the ACLU were not respecting the sensibilities or wishes of the majority, but behaving in a manner bound to give offense for no particular reason except their own hostility to public displays of religion."
I'm sorry Neocon, but this is the exact same sort of logic that the liberals used to defend Clinton. First you make an appeal to "the majority" then you label any disputation as "hostility." It's essentially an "all Christian hatred all the time" argument. It is possible to be against publicly funded expressions of a religious faith that one doesn't share simply because one shouldn't have to be subjected to such a thing on one's own dime. Your depiction of any difference with "the majority" as stemming from "hostility" is quite frankly beneath you.
"By no stretch of the imagination could such a benediction be considered "establishment" or "proselytizing"."
I will give you "proselytizing," although that denies peer pressure. However you are "establishing" that because the majority of people there claim the Christian faith, all of the people there should sit through a Christian prayer. Christianity is "established" as the dominant religion.
"Finally, the young lady was requesting a "moment of silence" as part of a compromise worked out between the ACLU and the administrators, to which no one else was party, and therefore it had no particular relevance to the main issue..."
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :
Administrator \Ad*min`is*tra"tor\, n. [L.]
1. One who administers affairs; one who directs, manages, executes, or dispenses, whether in civil, judicial, political, or ecclesiastical affairs; a manager.
Clearly, it is the administrators' right, and beyond that their duty, to determine what will and will not be a part of the ceremony. That is, after all, their job. They were wholly within their rights to set up the ceremony however they pleased. It doesn't matter if "the majority" of the audience were Rastafarians who wanted to get good and baked during the ceremony, or Satanists who wanted to sacrifice a goat, or Teamsters who wanted to stage a demonstration, or what have you, the administration has to have the authority to decide what can or cannot be done at the ceremony and whether you agree with their decision or not it is still their decision to make.
I am honestly frightened by this "screw 'em if they don't agree with us" brand of Christianity. It's not very Christian at all. I think Jesus would be disappointed.
I hope I haven't stomped too hard on your toes, it's just that I disagree, you see.
-BLT
|
