CHURCH AND STATE

CHURCH AND STATE

 

A cranky opinion for

CRANKY OPINION SATURDAY

The following is the opinion of a cranky old man with little or no knowledge on the subject opined.  Opposing opinions are welcome but will be ignored and please, no name calling, that means you, you big stupid-head.

I get it.  I really do.  The Constitution calls for a separation of Church (Religion) and State (Government.)  I agree with that.  I don’t want to go to school for a graduation ceremony or as a student and be forced to recite with everyone else the Lord’s Prayer. 

Sure it is harmless.  It’s not going to convert me, well I am already Christian, but it is not necessary.  I don’t want to have to sing “Hava Nagila,” or be forced to recite or even listen to “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is...”  I can get that at church; my church, if I want.

When I was in eighth grade, at public school, every morning one student was required…REQUIRED… to start off homeroom by reading a verse from the Old Testament.  I did not mind listening every day, but I dreaded reading once a month.  I didn’t really know the Bible and it was somewhat embarrassing.  I got by with the old faithful “Valley of the shadow of death” verse.  But I have to say; yea did that valley scare the crap out of me.  Anyway, this requirement was a clear violation of the Constitution and it did make me uncomfortable.  It did not ruin my life or change my beliefs, but it did make me uncomfortable.

So I do get it.  Schools or any government venue should not require reading or reciting any prayer.  I do believe in separation of Church and State.  That should be separation of proselytizing, or suggesting, or bullying ones beliefs on others in any government setting; within reason.

Eliminating a church from the silhouette of a city in a government publication is beyond the meaning of the Constitution.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation saw this as offensive

 

Objecting to a speaker uttering the word “God” in a non-proselytizing way is wrong. 

If you sneeze, does the Constitution allow me to say “God bless you” in the post office? 

We don’t need secular symbols in public places to celebrate Christmas, or Chanukah or Ramadan or Festivus, but are lights and green trees offensive.  Can they not simply represent a Winter Holiday season?  You can take “Under God” out of the Pledge, I won’t be offended, but please leave “In God we trust” on our money.  Can’t we have some tradition? And do not some people worship money? 

Where do we draw the line?  Forcing people to pray or subjecting them to Religious traditions they are not comfortable with is wrong.  Groups organized to wander the country seeking to bring law suits every time the word God is whispered or inferred in a public place are ridiculous.

 Separation of Church and State should not mean walking on egg shells.  Religion is so deeply ingrained in some people’s lives that to force them to ignore it in a public setting is to not allow them the freedom to be themselves.

Where do we draw the line?  Zero tolerance always ends up with ridiculous results.  How about relying on common sense?  If words or symbols are genuinely offensive, people should not be forced to be subjected to those words or symbols, but Holy Hanna (can I say Holy) let’s not be silly.  That’s where we should draw the line… on silly.

If you object to a speaker saying “I pray to God that…” that is just silly. 

If you object to the Religious symbol on a chain around a teachers neck, that is just silly.

If you object to the carving of a Religious symbol on a monument in a National Cemetery, that is just silly.

If the picture of Jesus, or Moses, or a statue of Buddha offends you, that is just silly.

If swearing to God to tell the truth in court offends you, then pass on the holy book and simply promise to cross your heart and hope to die, but don’t object to others method of a truthful promise, that is just silly.

That is where we should draw the line, when the objection is just silly. 

What is silly? 

I don’t know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.

The preceding was the opinion of a cranky old man, and not necessarily that of management…Mrs. Cranky.          

A Politically Correct Invocation

A Politically Correct Invocation

Prayer, because it is a part of all Religions is clearly unconstitutional at any Government function or venue.  People who do not believe in any Religion get rightfully indignant over spiritual speak at these functions. I think it is important to start Government functions with an invocation.  This is my suggestion for one that can be accepted by believers, non-believers, agnostics, any political party and people who have a lot of time and just like to get angry. 

Those who believe in a higher power may want to mumble a different version.

 

Our Authority which art in Washington, how great is thy name.

The King be gone, the peoples will be on,

In the states as it is in DC.

Give us this day our entitlements,

And forgive us our debts

As we pass them on to our progeny.

And lead us all with expectations

You couldn’t be evil

For thine is the Government with the power and we will know that forever.

OK

 

 

 

M’LORD

M’LORD

Mrs. Cranky and I have been together for six years.  We have been married for about three and a half years.  It recently occurred to me that we do not have “pet” names for each other.

Oh, she sometimes calls me Cranky, or just Old Man, but nothing that I would associate with a personal pet moniker.   When she calls me Joe, it means I’ve done something bad, so that doesn’t work.  I usually just call her Kare.  That is almost a pet name, like "Cara Mia Mine."  Ok that’s a stretch but it is better than Cranky, or Old Man.

Anyway.

I decided she should have an appropriate name of affection for me.  My previous wives had affectionate names for me.  Honey, Sweetie, you know, stuff like that.   Apparently those names did not work very well.  Honey and Sweetie got left behind for greener pastures. 

Those names just won’t do.  I don’t believe them anymore anyway.  I think the problem with previous marriages is I was not properly respected.  I want Mrs. Cranky to call me something that indicates respect.  I decided she should call me “M’Lord.”

M’Lord.  It just screams respect and adoration.  I could use some respect and adoration.  I deserve respect and adoration.  

The other night in bed, just before we were preparing to turn in for the night I told Mrs. C.

“From now on, I would like you to call me a name that indicates respect, not Cranky, or Old Man.”

“O k a y.”  She responded in that drawn out way that says “I’m listening, but I don’t think I’m going to like it.”

“From now on, I expect to be addressed as M’Lord.  It would indicate respect and adoration.  I deserve respect and adoration.”

“M’Lord?  Good luck with that!”

“What…is that too much to ask?”

“Oh no, certainly not; no problem at all.  Good night M’Lord.”

Mrs. Cranky then rolled over away from me.

“Oh, and turn off the TV. M’Lord.”

I’m not sure, but I think before she drifted off to sleep I heard her mumble,

“Jerk.”

Maybe I’ll just stick with Cranky, or Old Man.