NOTE: This was a post taken directly from my blog, and it's a moderate length. I encourage you to read it and, perhaps, add your opinions about this issue. The narrow topic of The Cross at Ground Zero may be discussed, as well as the broad issue of secularism and classical liberalism. Feel free to interject your commentary in a civilized and dignified manner; flaming will not be tolerated.
Adhere to the Forum Rules, too, but don't be afraid to speak the truth as you see it. Eloquence is key.
The United States of America, since its inception in the year 1776, has been well-endowed in the vital principles of intellectual liberty and forbearance; this is what makes our republic so unique in such a myriad of ways. America is the land of opportunity and equity, but needless to say, we still indeed have a long way to go. The resolve of We the People has never been stronger, and I predict that this glorious republic shall endure for as long as We the People shall allow the bells of liberty to reverberate; however, recently, a question was posed as to why we should remain tolerant of the beliefs of others, even the most detrimental beliefs. This issue, though, transcends a mere system of beliefs; this valid inquiry is of a constitutional nature. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution posits, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” We, as citizens of the United States of America, “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” as our Declaration of Independence proclaims. And we, as citizens of the United States of America, have a duty to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” as our Constitution proclaims. Our nation, merely two hundred thirty-eight years of age, has been the most influential and prosperous nation to ever grace the face of this Earth; it is our civic duty to enforce this national identity. Annuit cœptis, Novus ordo seclorum: We have approved the undertaking of a new order of the ages.
A most disconcerting revelation has recently plagued one of the most hallowed sites on American soil: the former grounds of the World Trade Center, deemed "Ground Zero" after the jihadist terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Out of the smoldering embers of the crumbled towers arose a steel cross, with dimensions of twenty feet high, like a phoenix, like a resurgent, like a pugnacious middle finger to the terrorists who stripped nearly three thousand innocent civilians of their lives on that crisp, September morning. In recent times, however, a group claiming that this cross "infringes upon First Amendment rights" has arisen, just as the phoenix, but this time as a looming specter, hellbent on removing the emblem from the site. This group is American Atheists, a group that states that their core mission is to "protect the absolute separation of religion from government and raise the profile of atheism in the public discourse" (Link to "American Atheists"). One must inquire, how does this effigy denote subjugation of others not affiliated with the cross?
A founding principle of our republic is secularism, or the "separation of church and state." This is necessary for any republic to function to its fullest and most free extent. The first President of the United States, George Washington, expressed his distaste for perfervid spiritual tyranny in a letter to Edward Newenham in 1792, writing, "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause." Later that year, he expressed, "Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated." In a letter to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia in 1789, Washington said, "I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution" (Source: Various annotated sources, as compiled by About.com's "Agnosticism/Atheism" team, regarding the curious religious encounters of President George Washington). Washington, however, was not the only founding father that believed advocated the notion of secularism. John Adams, second President of the United States declared, in the 1798 Treaty of Tripoli, that, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." But this does not serve to imply that religion is fundamentally evil. In fact, my beliefs are quite the contrary; however, there are many aspects of personal life that should be kept out of the government, and there are many aspects of government life that should be kept away from religion. This includes the strong doctrine of secularism, for Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States stated, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear" (Source: Monticello's compilation of letters from Jefferson to his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1787). And thus should be done. My God approves of and encourages reason; yours may be different. But it matters not. Our Gods, as different as they may be, are no more important than one another, regardless of our personal sentiments. We must learn to covet and respect our relationships as human beings and learn to live, being tolerant of one another's beliefs. We must learn to embrace the world and all of the people around us, for we are all humans. We have a freedom of religion and a freedom from religion, and this choice makes us truly free.
Returning to the subject of the steel cross at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, the premise that this so-called pervasive emblem of faith subjugates others is asinine and rather conventional, considering the fact that this exact argument has been used time and time again, only to be vanquished each subsequent proposition. Furthermore, what I find veritably repulsive, that which arouses the highest degree of indignation within my heart, is the total disregard for the law of the unjust claim.
The doctrine of laissez faire (French: to allow to do, or to let alone) economics that we have embraced for the past century and a half is the foundation and cornerstone for American free markets and private property. Adam Smith, a classical liberal, best explained the system of laissez faire, saying, "Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men." The postulate of the free market is little government interference in capital. Of course, this does not go to say that laissez faire establishes a deregulated economy, but this system posits that the economy works best when free markets have reign with only necessary government regulation. But what does the premier capitalistic system have to do with the steel cross? In truth, not much, but the prevalent idea of laissez faire economics has taken root in the form of this cross. Laissez faire emphasizes the role of private property (although, this is in a for-profit business context). In this system, the government must recognize the role of private property and musn't infringe upon the private property of non-federal institutions, whether they be for-profit or non-profit. This is the principal essence of capitalism.
The National September 11 Memorial and Museum is a private, non-profit organization, so one may argue that postulating the ideals of laissez faire economics is, colloquially speaking, "mixing apples and oranges," but that is not so. The paradigm of this system is evident even in non-profit organizations. This is a private organization; therefore, surely, the federal government has no say in the religious endorsements of a private organization; this is a tried-and-true argument, especially considering the explicit wording of the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This is clear. Congress cannot encroach and infringe upon private religious beliefs. The key word here, being "Congress," is the quintessence of my argument. The First Amendment says nothing regarding a corporation or organization infringing upon the free exercise of religion, mainly because a non-governmental organization cannot infringe upon the religious liberty of a people. If an organization chooses to express its religious sentiments, then by all means, they are granted that right. No one can tell them otherwise. The expression of a cross at Ground Zero does not infringe upon the rights of anyone; it cannot infringe upon the rights of anyone. Recently, in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court held that “the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity." What's more is that American Atheists failed to cite any inequitable treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. Why should a case be deemed valid if the plaintiff cannot cite any evidence of discrimination? Has this steel cross hurt them? The amusing aspect of this is that American Atheists refuses to answer this question, so how can they possibly expect any sense of credibility? Opponents of the cross also fail to realize that this organization is a museum, and they wish to remove a museum artifact because of its religious implications. By this "logic," suits should be filed against all museums which harbor any type of historical artifact that resembles any type of religious or "offensive" symbol. For instance, take the swastika and Confederate flag; these two emblems denote racial superiority and the subjugation of other races deemed "impure." Because a Civil War museum or a Holocaust museum displays these flags, does this imply said museums endorse these views? No, it simply means that these artifacts are being displayed to pay homage to the history surrounding the items.
Now, it should be noted that this case is aging; it was resolved in July of this year, but I recently received word of the verdict. The appellate judges ruled that the “stated purpose of displaying The Cross at Ground Zero to tell the story of how some people used faith to cope with the tragedy is genuine, and an objective observer would understand the purpose of the display to be secular.” This post was not intended to, as some would say, "beat a dead horse." The intention of this post was to reinvigorate one of the core premises of this nation: religious freedom from tyranny. Annuit cœptis, Novus ordo seclorum: We have approved the undertaking of a new order of the ages.
Adhere to the Forum Rules, too, but don't be afraid to speak the truth as you see it. Eloquence is key.
Annuit Cœptis, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Freedom of and from Religion
The United States of America, since its inception in the year 1776, has been well-endowed in the vital principles of intellectual liberty and forbearance; this is what makes our republic so unique in such a myriad of ways. America is the land of opportunity and equity, but needless to say, we still indeed have a long way to go. The resolve of We the People has never been stronger, and I predict that this glorious republic shall endure for as long as We the People shall allow the bells of liberty to reverberate; however, recently, a question was posed as to why we should remain tolerant of the beliefs of others, even the most detrimental beliefs. This issue, though, transcends a mere system of beliefs; this valid inquiry is of a constitutional nature. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution posits, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” We, as citizens of the United States of America, “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” as our Declaration of Independence proclaims. And we, as citizens of the United States of America, have a duty to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” as our Constitution proclaims. Our nation, merely two hundred thirty-eight years of age, has been the most influential and prosperous nation to ever grace the face of this Earth; it is our civic duty to enforce this national identity. Annuit cœptis, Novus ordo seclorum: We have approved the undertaking of a new order of the ages.
A most disconcerting revelation has recently plagued one of the most hallowed sites on American soil: the former grounds of the World Trade Center, deemed "Ground Zero" after the jihadist terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Out of the smoldering embers of the crumbled towers arose a steel cross, with dimensions of twenty feet high, like a phoenix, like a resurgent, like a pugnacious middle finger to the terrorists who stripped nearly three thousand innocent civilians of their lives on that crisp, September morning. In recent times, however, a group claiming that this cross "infringes upon First Amendment rights" has arisen, just as the phoenix, but this time as a looming specter, hellbent on removing the emblem from the site. This group is American Atheists, a group that states that their core mission is to "protect the absolute separation of religion from government and raise the profile of atheism in the public discourse" (Link to "American Atheists"). One must inquire, how does this effigy denote subjugation of others not affiliated with the cross?
A founding principle of our republic is secularism, or the "separation of church and state." This is necessary for any republic to function to its fullest and most free extent. The first President of the United States, George Washington, expressed his distaste for perfervid spiritual tyranny in a letter to Edward Newenham in 1792, writing, "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause." Later that year, he expressed, "Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated." In a letter to the United Baptist Churches of Virginia in 1789, Washington said, "I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution" (Source: Various annotated sources, as compiled by About.com's "Agnosticism/Atheism" team, regarding the curious religious encounters of President George Washington). Washington, however, was not the only founding father that believed advocated the notion of secularism. John Adams, second President of the United States declared, in the 1798 Treaty of Tripoli, that, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." But this does not serve to imply that religion is fundamentally evil. In fact, my beliefs are quite the contrary; however, there are many aspects of personal life that should be kept out of the government, and there are many aspects of government life that should be kept away from religion. This includes the strong doctrine of secularism, for Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States stated, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear" (Source: Monticello's compilation of letters from Jefferson to his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1787). And thus should be done. My God approves of and encourages reason; yours may be different. But it matters not. Our Gods, as different as they may be, are no more important than one another, regardless of our personal sentiments. We must learn to covet and respect our relationships as human beings and learn to live, being tolerant of one another's beliefs. We must learn to embrace the world and all of the people around us, for we are all humans. We have a freedom of religion and a freedom from religion, and this choice makes us truly free.
Returning to the subject of the steel cross at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, the premise that this so-called pervasive emblem of faith subjugates others is asinine and rather conventional, considering the fact that this exact argument has been used time and time again, only to be vanquished each subsequent proposition. Furthermore, what I find veritably repulsive, that which arouses the highest degree of indignation within my heart, is the total disregard for the law of the unjust claim.
The doctrine of laissez faire (French: to allow to do, or to let alone) economics that we have embraced for the past century and a half is the foundation and cornerstone for American free markets and private property. Adam Smith, a classical liberal, best explained the system of laissez faire, saying, "Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men." The postulate of the free market is little government interference in capital. Of course, this does not go to say that laissez faire establishes a deregulated economy, but this system posits that the economy works best when free markets have reign with only necessary government regulation. But what does the premier capitalistic system have to do with the steel cross? In truth, not much, but the prevalent idea of laissez faire economics has taken root in the form of this cross. Laissez faire emphasizes the role of private property (although, this is in a for-profit business context). In this system, the government must recognize the role of private property and musn't infringe upon the private property of non-federal institutions, whether they be for-profit or non-profit. This is the principal essence of capitalism.
The National September 11 Memorial and Museum is a private, non-profit organization, so one may argue that postulating the ideals of laissez faire economics is, colloquially speaking, "mixing apples and oranges," but that is not so. The paradigm of this system is evident even in non-profit organizations. This is a private organization; therefore, surely, the federal government has no say in the religious endorsements of a private organization; this is a tried-and-true argument, especially considering the explicit wording of the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This is clear. Congress cannot encroach and infringe upon private religious beliefs. The key word here, being "Congress," is the quintessence of my argument. The First Amendment says nothing regarding a corporation or organization infringing upon the free exercise of religion, mainly because a non-governmental organization cannot infringe upon the religious liberty of a people. If an organization chooses to express its religious sentiments, then by all means, they are granted that right. No one can tell them otherwise. The expression of a cross at Ground Zero does not infringe upon the rights of anyone; it cannot infringe upon the rights of anyone. Recently, in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court held that “the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity." What's more is that American Atheists failed to cite any inequitable treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. Why should a case be deemed valid if the plaintiff cannot cite any evidence of discrimination? Has this steel cross hurt them? The amusing aspect of this is that American Atheists refuses to answer this question, so how can they possibly expect any sense of credibility? Opponents of the cross also fail to realize that this organization is a museum, and they wish to remove a museum artifact because of its religious implications. By this "logic," suits should be filed against all museums which harbor any type of historical artifact that resembles any type of religious or "offensive" symbol. For instance, take the swastika and Confederate flag; these two emblems denote racial superiority and the subjugation of other races deemed "impure." Because a Civil War museum or a Holocaust museum displays these flags, does this imply said museums endorse these views? No, it simply means that these artifacts are being displayed to pay homage to the history surrounding the items.
Now, it should be noted that this case is aging; it was resolved in July of this year, but I recently received word of the verdict. The appellate judges ruled that the “stated purpose of displaying The Cross at Ground Zero to tell the story of how some people used faith to cope with the tragedy is genuine, and an objective observer would understand the purpose of the display to be secular.” This post was not intended to, as some would say, "beat a dead horse." The intention of this post was to reinvigorate one of the core premises of this nation: religious freedom from tyranny. Annuit cœptis, Novus ordo seclorum: We have approved the undertaking of a new order of the ages.
