| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
Monumental Intolerance
“I think, therefore I am.” So said Rene Descartes, French
philosopher and mathematician, who came to be known as the
father of modern philosophy. Working in the 17th century, he
became focused on trying to eliminate the uncertainties of
philosophy and instead making its principles more like the
certainties of mathematics. In working on this problem,
though, he found the only certainty he could count on was the
fact that he was thinking. His conclusion from that was that
since he was thinking thoughts, he must therefore exist.
Whatever. Most of us have neither the time nor the
inclination to sit around pondering over such brain-taxing
esoterica. It would be nice, however, if more people practiced
critical thinking at least to the degree that they don’t accuse
others of narrow-minded prejudice based on faulty logic.
For instance, in the minds of millions who consider themselves
to be among the fabulously enlightened, the following
statement would be perfectly logical: “I oppose gay marriage,
therefore I am homophobic.” Even if a person had no problem
with civil unions between homosexuals, in the minds of some it
is still “homophobic” to oppose gay marriage.
Now, if you summon up even a fraction of your critical
thinking skills, does that strike you as being logical? Try
applying the same logic to another thorny issue in American
life.
For instance, if a reasoned opposition to gay marriage
makes one homophobic, then why doesn’t having outright hissy
fits over the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes and the
singing of Christmas carols on government property make one
“religiophobic?” In the same vein, why aren’t department
stores that forbid employees to utter the words “merry
Christmas” to customers, but insist instead on “happy
holidays,” guilty of practicing “religiophobic” or even
“Christophobic” policies? And why aren’t corporations that
have Orwellianly changed the name of their annual Christmas
parties to “holiday” parties guilty of the same?
There are two points to be made here. First, “homophobic”
is a made-up, politically correct nonsense word that basically
refers to anyone who doesn’t go the last mile in bestowing total
and unconditional personal affirmation upon homosexuality.
Second, the made-up word “religiophobic” makes far more
sense than the word “homophobic,” but nobody’s using it to
describe the latest person who is so personally
discombobulated by a public display of the Ten
Commandments that he felt compelled to take his gripe to the
highest court in the land.
The case is being brought by one Thomas Van Orden, a
homeless former lawyer, of all things, out of Austin, Texas. It’s
tempting to say that homeless lawyers is something the country
could use a lot more of since maybe then we’d be spared at least
a portion of the expensive and senselessly divisive nonsense
that fills up so many of our courts. And yet, here’s a homeless
lawyer taking just such a case to the Supreme Court.
We can’t win.
The impetus for Van Orden’s case is a monument of the Ten
Commandments that sits on the Texas State Capitol lawn.
“Most religious references I don’t worry about,” he said. “They
aren’t harmful and don’t hurt anyone. But that monument is
not a small thing. It’s 6 feet, 9 inches.” In other words, it’s not
so much the substance that matters, it’s the size of the thing.
Van Orden--as well as all other easily offended
religiophobes out there with too much spare time on their
hands and a taste for litigation--seriously needs to get over it.
The display of that monument doesn’t constitute a government
command, the disobeying of which gets you marched off to
some Falwellian gulag. It’s simply an inanimate object
displaying a list of Biblical and moral ideals that have been
passed down over thousands of years and are the foundation of
the Judeo-Christian principles on which the laws of Western
civilization are based. So what’s the big problem?
Separation of church and state? Forget about it. Here’s all
16 words the Constitution has to say on the subject: “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There’s been no
establishment of religion in Austin, so again, what’s the
problem?
The homeless Van Orden, who lost his license to practice
law several years ago, still seems to operate on a Descartes-like
philosophy: I litigate, therefore I am. At night he sleeps in a
tent in the woods, but most of his days are spent at a university
law library and he has worked on this case relentlessly for three
years. His initiative is admirable--or it would be if he had
applied it towards finding gainful employment rather than
trying to get the court to ban something which the Constitution
clearly does not prohibit (see First Amendment excerpt above).
Whatever happens with the case, Van Orden’s not worried.
“If they decide that it doesn’t offend the First Amendment, I’m
not going to fall down weeping,” he said. “I don’t lose
anything.” Sure, what’s this homeless guy got to lose? His life’s
pretty much a bust already, so what’s three years spent
indulging a petty gripe? The only thing lost is valuable
Supreme Court time, but what the heck.
If guys like Van Orden think that God and religion and Jesus
and Christmas and the Ten Commandments are all a crock,
that’s fine. But why do they find it so almighty difficult to
tolerate these traditional features of life in a country founded
on Judeo-Christian principles? Nobody’s making them buy
into any of it and the idea that religious forces are ever going to
gain sway over this big, bawdy, pleasure-loving, gratification-
seeking country is utterly laughable.
Seems like a homeless, unemployed lawyer who still likes
working on legal projects could have found some kind of case
that if successful, would have actually done someone some
conceivable good. If the court for some reason rules in his
favor, how will anyone’s life have been improved, unless, of
course, you count Van Orden’s own gratuitous self-satisfaction?
“I think, therefore I am.” So said Rene Descartes, French
philosopher and mathematician, who came to be known as the
father of modern philosophy. Working in the 17th century, he
became focused on trying to eliminate the uncertainties of
philosophy and instead making its principles more like the
certainties of mathematics. In working on this problem,
though, he found the only certainty he could count on was the
fact that he was thinking. His conclusion from that was that
since he was thinking thoughts, he must therefore exist.
Whatever. Most of us have neither the time nor the
inclination to sit around pondering over such brain-taxing
esoterica. It would be nice, however, if more people practiced
critical thinking at least to the degree that they don’t accuse
others of narrow-minded prejudice based on faulty logic.
For instance, in the minds of millions who consider themselves
to be among the fabulously enlightened, the following
statement would be perfectly logical: “I oppose gay marriage,
therefore I am homophobic.” Even if a person had no problem
with civil unions between homosexuals, in the minds of some it
is still “homophobic” to oppose gay marriage.
Now, if you summon up even a fraction of your critical
thinking skills, does that strike you as being logical? Try
applying the same logic to another thorny issue in American
life.
For instance, if a reasoned opposition to gay marriage
makes one homophobic, then why doesn’t having outright hissy
fits over the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes and the
singing of Christmas carols on government property make one
“religiophobic?” In the same vein, why aren’t department
stores that forbid employees to utter the words “merry
Christmas” to customers, but insist instead on “happy
holidays,” guilty of practicing “religiophobic” or even
“Christophobic” policies? And why aren’t corporations that
have Orwellianly changed the name of their annual Christmas
parties to “holiday” parties guilty of the same?
There are two points to be made here. First, “homophobic”
is a made-up, politically correct nonsense word that basically
refers to anyone who doesn’t go the last mile in bestowing total
and unconditional personal affirmation upon homosexuality.
Second, the made-up word “religiophobic” makes far more
sense than the word “homophobic,” but nobody’s using it to
describe the latest person who is so personally
discombobulated by a public display of the Ten
Commandments that he felt compelled to take his gripe to the
highest court in the land.
The case is being brought by one Thomas Van Orden, a
homeless former lawyer, of all things, out of Austin, Texas. It’s
tempting to say that homeless lawyers is something the country
could use a lot more of since maybe then we’d be spared at least
a portion of the expensive and senselessly divisive nonsense
that fills up so many of our courts. And yet, here’s a homeless
lawyer taking just such a case to the Supreme Court.
We can’t win.
The impetus for Van Orden’s case is a monument of the Ten
Commandments that sits on the Texas State Capitol lawn.
“Most religious references I don’t worry about,” he said. “They
aren’t harmful and don’t hurt anyone. But that monument is
not a small thing. It’s 6 feet, 9 inches.” In other words, it’s not
so much the substance that matters, it’s the size of the thing.
Van Orden--as well as all other easily offended
religiophobes out there with too much spare time on their
hands and a taste for litigation--seriously needs to get over it.
The display of that monument doesn’t constitute a government
command, the disobeying of which gets you marched off to
some Falwellian gulag. It’s simply an inanimate object
displaying a list of Biblical and moral ideals that have been
passed down over thousands of years and are the foundation of
the Judeo-Christian principles on which the laws of Western
civilization are based. So what’s the big problem?
Separation of church and state? Forget about it. Here’s all
16 words the Constitution has to say on the subject: “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There’s been no
establishment of religion in Austin, so again, what’s the
problem?
The homeless Van Orden, who lost his license to practice
law several years ago, still seems to operate on a Descartes-like
philosophy: I litigate, therefore I am. At night he sleeps in a
tent in the woods, but most of his days are spent at a university
law library and he has worked on this case relentlessly for three
years. His initiative is admirable--or it would be if he had
applied it towards finding gainful employment rather than
trying to get the court to ban something which the Constitution
clearly does not prohibit (see First Amendment excerpt above).
Whatever happens with the case, Van Orden’s not worried.
“If they decide that it doesn’t offend the First Amendment, I’m
not going to fall down weeping,” he said. “I don’t lose
anything.” Sure, what’s this homeless guy got to lose? His life’s
pretty much a bust already, so what’s three years spent
indulging a petty gripe? The only thing lost is valuable
Supreme Court time, but what the heck.
If guys like Van Orden think that God and religion and Jesus
and Christmas and the Ten Commandments are all a crock,
that’s fine. But why do they find it so almighty difficult to
tolerate these traditional features of life in a country founded
on Judeo-Christian principles? Nobody’s making them buy
into any of it and the idea that religious forces are ever going to
gain sway over this big, bawdy, pleasure-loving, gratification-
seeking country is utterly laughable.
Seems like a homeless, unemployed lawyer who still likes
working on legal projects could have found some kind of case
that if successful, would have actually done someone some
conceivable good. If the court for some reason rules in his
favor, how will anyone’s life have been improved, unless, of
course, you count Van Orden’s own gratuitous self-satisfaction?