![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, September 2, 2003; Page A21
In April 1966, Time magazine asked in a famous cover, "Is God Dead?" The cover triggered an enormous controversy, especially at Emory University, where a theologian at the school had sparked debate by propounding something called "Christian Atheism." Now, all these years later, the answer to Time's question is clear. God is not dead, but he's on welfare.
I do not mean to be either cavalier or sacrilegious, but it occurs to me that the God so often discussed nowadays seems as dependent on the government as a welfare mother. For some reason, the Almighty needs government assistance to make his presence known. Either the schools must have prayer or government buildings must have a religious reminder -- say, the Ten Commandments -- or else, somehow, he will be banished from our lives or our consciousness.
I am not a religious person, but neither am I particularly hostile to religion. It hardly ruins my day to confront a religious symbol or to see a Christmas tree in some public space. I have even survived a crucifix placed on the wall of a public school classroom where, as a wee student, I used to visit while delivering messages from the school's office. This was good duty, since it got me out of class for the day.
But I have to wonder about a God so dependent on government for his virtual existence that secular laws could virtually obliterate his presence, or who needs the help of lawmakers to assert his place in our lives. This, more or less, was the argument of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who had a statue of the Ten Commandments placed in the rotunda of the state Supreme Court building. When he was instructed by higher courts and sounder minds to remove the thing, he responded that the state was being told "it could not acknowledge God." He's since been suspended from office.
Moore's position was initially supported by much of the conservative movement, religious and political -- including Alabama's attorney general, Bill Pryor, who ultimately told Moore to obey the law. Moore lost his backing only when he defied the higher courts -- impermissible for a judge. In other words, his tactics, not his beliefs, were too much for his more reasonable supporters. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized, Moore was turning out to be a vehicle for the American Civil Liberties Union and others to raise money: "For the sake of preserving religious expression in public life, we hope he backs off and finds another battle to fight another day."
No doubt he will. But no doubt, too, Moore is a lesson to us all -- including his supporters. The statute had to be a reminder to anyone who entered what Moore clearly thought of as his courthouse that religion -- and a particular one at that -- was intertwined with law in that building. That was the case because, if for no other reason, the judge said so over and over again. He went too far.
But it is the nature of religion to go too far. That is its history -- in the distant past and just yesterday as well. All over the world, people are hideously butchered in the name of God, which is to say condemned to death on account of an accident of birth. (This, after all, is how most of us get our religious convictions.) Religion can have a hard time being tolerant. To many adherents, the stakes are too high.
I am at a loss to explain this mentality. But I am at a loss, too, to explain why the all-powerful deity needs some schoolteacher to lead a prayer -- why, for instance, the religious do not tend to this matter before their children leave for class. I do not understand why a God who once smote with abandon and authored miracles that science could never explain needs a statue here or a display there to remind us of his omnipresence.
The only explanation is that these are not just subtle reminders of a higher authority -- higher than the law, for instance -- but not-so subtle attempts at using government to set things straight: Yours is a misguided religion, a back-of-the-bus belief that is not quite what the state prefers. Get with the program.
Religious minorities in this country fiercely hold to their beliefs with no help whatever from the government, save constitutional protections. They, not Moore and his supporters, ought to be our lesson for the day. Their God is vibrant and strong and very much a presence in their lives -- not dead and not on the dole either.
cohenr@washpost.com
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12210-2003Sep1.html
Tuesday, September 2, 2003; Page A21
In April 1966, Time magazine asked in a famous cover, "Is God Dead?" The cover triggered an enormous controversy, especially at Emory University, where a theologian at the school had sparked debate by propounding something called "Christian Atheism." Now, all these years later, the answer to Time's question is clear. God is not dead, but he's on welfare.
I do not mean to be either cavalier or sacrilegious, but it occurs to me that the God so often discussed nowadays seems as dependent on the government as a welfare mother. For some reason, the Almighty needs government assistance to make his presence known. Either the schools must have prayer or government buildings must have a religious reminder -- say, the Ten Commandments -- or else, somehow, he will be banished from our lives or our consciousness.
I am not a religious person, but neither am I particularly hostile to religion. It hardly ruins my day to confront a religious symbol or to see a Christmas tree in some public space. I have even survived a crucifix placed on the wall of a public school classroom where, as a wee student, I used to visit while delivering messages from the school's office. This was good duty, since it got me out of class for the day.
But I have to wonder about a God so dependent on government for his virtual existence that secular laws could virtually obliterate his presence, or who needs the help of lawmakers to assert his place in our lives. This, more or less, was the argument of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who had a statue of the Ten Commandments placed in the rotunda of the state Supreme Court building. When he was instructed by higher courts and sounder minds to remove the thing, he responded that the state was being told "it could not acknowledge God." He's since been suspended from office.
Moore's position was initially supported by much of the conservative movement, religious and political -- including Alabama's attorney general, Bill Pryor, who ultimately told Moore to obey the law. Moore lost his backing only when he defied the higher courts -- impermissible for a judge. In other words, his tactics, not his beliefs, were too much for his more reasonable supporters. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized, Moore was turning out to be a vehicle for the American Civil Liberties Union and others to raise money: "For the sake of preserving religious expression in public life, we hope he backs off and finds another battle to fight another day."
No doubt he will. But no doubt, too, Moore is a lesson to us all -- including his supporters. The statute had to be a reminder to anyone who entered what Moore clearly thought of as his courthouse that religion -- and a particular one at that -- was intertwined with law in that building. That was the case because, if for no other reason, the judge said so over and over again. He went too far.
But it is the nature of religion to go too far. That is its history -- in the distant past and just yesterday as well. All over the world, people are hideously butchered in the name of God, which is to say condemned to death on account of an accident of birth. (This, after all, is how most of us get our religious convictions.) Religion can have a hard time being tolerant. To many adherents, the stakes are too high.
I am at a loss to explain this mentality. But I am at a loss, too, to explain why the all-powerful deity needs some schoolteacher to lead a prayer -- why, for instance, the religious do not tend to this matter before their children leave for class. I do not understand why a God who once smote with abandon and authored miracles that science could never explain needs a statue here or a display there to remind us of his omnipresence.
The only explanation is that these are not just subtle reminders of a higher authority -- higher than the law, for instance -- but not-so subtle attempts at using government to set things straight: Yours is a misguided religion, a back-of-the-bus belief that is not quite what the state prefers. Get with the program.
Religious minorities in this country fiercely hold to their beliefs with no help whatever from the government, save constitutional protections. They, not Moore and his supporters, ought to be our lesson for the day. Their God is vibrant and strong and very much a presence in their lives -- not dead and not on the dole either.
cohenr@washpost.com
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12210-2003Sep1.html
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-09-02 05:39 pm (UTC)From:The article is well-written, well-thought, but of course it would have to be to make the Washpost, yeah?
These things, they are definitely the products of zealots going too far in the face of reason and respect, but at the same time, to make such a to-do out of them, is to spark the debate anew, and keep the arguments ad the blood hot, when those energies could be better spent working out how in the hell to get our unemployment down, get our heads out of our asses, reduce crime, figure out how to beat cancer, that sort of fun stuff.
I could give a shit how you feel about your God, I'm not going to tell you whose god is best, especially when I look at my paystubs and say MY God:
I'm supposed to live off of this?
no subject
Date: 2003-09-02 08:55 pm (UTC)From:I'd like to agree with you about keeping the debate alive, when there are more important things to discuss, but so many people are so upset about this. It's the most important thing in their lives - much as God should be, if they believve in him - and they've got to learn how the world is suposed to work.
Okay, that doesn't make complete sense, but as long as these zealots are going to continue to tell me how to live my life, and continue to make my life difficult, I've got to spreadt he word about them. Who knows, maybe it would soon affect my paycheck.