|
|
 |
 |
|
--- Thursday, November 30, 2006
So Help Me [God]
I opened this discussion over at The Point, but I think it bears adding here as well. This is a tricky issue, one that could challenge our understanding of what it means to be "one nation under God," or what it means to be Christians in a secular society.
Now that the first Muslim has been elected to Congress, Dennis Prager and Eugene Volokh have weighed in on the inevitable clash of worldviews that will accompany his swearing in. Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison intends to take his oath of office on the Quran, rather than the Bible, and his decision is bound to spark a difficult debate with no easy answers.
Prager argues that to allow Ellison to swear upon the Quran would be an affront to the American republic:
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath. Volokh counters, however:
This argument both mistakes the purpose of the oath, and misunderstands the Constitution. In fact, it calls for the violation of some of the Constitution's multiculturalist provisions.
To begin with, the oath is a religious ritual, both in its origins and its use by the devout today. The oath invokes God as a witness to one's promise, as a means of making the promise more weighty on the oathtaker's conscience.
This is why, for instance, the Federal Rules of Evidence, dealing with the related subject of the courtroom oath, state, "Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so." If you want the oath to be maximally effective, then it is indeed entirely true that "all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book." That book is the one that will most impress the oathtaker's mind with the duty to comply with the oath. Each writer makes a strong case here. But this is, perhaps, a more important and difficult discussion than either gives it credit for. It is one that could further shape, I think -- or at least reveal -- the state of America's understanding of God.
My heart certainly sides with Prager, though I am not convinced that prohibiting Ellison from using the Quran to administer his oath is the best means of protecting America's Christian tradition or upholding the Biblical standard. I do not lack in hostility toward the Quran, yet it could be dangerous territory to ask an elected official to base his service on a denial of his own belief system.
The central questions here might then be: Does the United States hold a collective acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the God of Scripture, or do we defer to the worldviews of individual Americans? Thus, does a new member of Congress (or judge, or president) swear upon the beliefs of a nation "under God" or upon his own?
I lean toward the former, in that a society invariably operates under one system of values (however loosely defined), lest it fall into a relativistic anarchy. Volokh's arguments notwithstanding, the Constitution itself doesn't present a comprehensive foundation upon which to stand. Still, these are largely uncharted waters for an increasingly pluralistic age, and we do well to navigate them carefully.
--- Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Will the virgin bachelorette be chosen as the Rome princess?
Okay, so as much as I bash reality TV, I occassionally get sucked into a show....my excuse always being that I was just "flipping through the channels and ...." But seriously, last night I was flipping through the channels and landed on The Bachelor. Though I would normally keep turning the channels, something did catch my eye to make me spend the rest of the hour engrossed in this show. The tagline that kept me in front of the television last night was something like, "Will the virgin compromise her morals?" What? A VIRGIN has made it this far into THIS show?!
Sure enough, as I kept watching, a 23-year-old young woman was one of the final three. An attractive blonde from California, the clip they kept playing was of her saying, "I'm saving myself for marriage, and I really hope he realizes I am a classy, conservative lady." ...etc.
So, what exactly would cause a man with dozens of women at his side at the beginning of the show narrow down his pick to such a woman? Perhaps it was just what he said when she expressed to him her concern about accepting the invitation to the fantasy suite. Stopping her midway through her ramblings as to why she was a bit nervous, he told her he is attracted to conservative, classy women, which is why he had chosen her, and there was no pressure to compromise her beliefs. He went on to invite her to the suite to give them a chance to talk off the camera. Many would scoff at that, but something about their interactions made me actually believe that is exactly why he invited her. And, the next clip was her basically saying he was a gentleman and they really just got to know each other better and their was never any pressure for more.
Don't get me wrong, this does not make me a "believer" in these kinds of shows. You would be hard-pressed to make me believe two people could actually "fall in love" on one of these shows, seeing as though even if they DID have a particular interest, they are forced by show producers to keep it to themselves until the end of the show (after all, let's admit, the producers care nothing about helping our generation find love and marriage, but only about how much money they can get from advertising due to high viewership).
By the end of the night, the Bachelor had chosen this virgin as one of the two final women. Though the show has said nothing about his conviction about "saving yourself for marriage," I would guess it's not quite where she stands. After all, he allows the audience to be led to believe the fantasy suite nights with the other two women were a little more steamy, so to say. Still, one wonders if perhaps the physical relationship, even in a show like this, just gets old after a while. Perhaps he realizes this woman has decent motives in her relationship and is not interested in manipulating or drawing him in with her sexuality. Rather, she has more to offer than her body, and she wants more from him than his.
Hmmmmmm......
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
