Posted by
MrBlah on Sunday, July 16, 2006 5:18:51 PM
Some people claim they have a First mendment right to speak, but quite honestly, given what passes for srgumentation lately, one wonders if they should exercise it.
Letters to the editors are usually not examples of great philosophical reasoning, but that's ok given the limitations editors put for space. However, some just need to be responded to, especially when they miss the obvious point. In today's edition of
The Orange County Register, there are two letters reprinted that were in esponse to a nother column written earlier in the week. That column dealt with the Mt. Soldedad Cross case in San Diego. The writer of that column compared the efforts to remove the cross comparable to the actions of the Taliban. It was an excellent point because they were intolerant of any view point that contradicted their own view, and they had the power to enforce their point of view. Now notice that I did not mention that it involved Islam. The abstract point is their intolerance of other points of view.
Apparantly, the abstract principle was lost on Don Chaney and Rob LoBue of Placentia and Mission Viejo repectively. Consider one of Chaney's opening line: "The Taliban has no problem with state sponsered religion. What they fear is a completely secular government." Well, actually, no they don't. They funded and helped terrorists attack secular governments not because they are scared, but because secular governments are an anathema to Allah. But again, the question at issue was not "state sponsered religion" but of intolerance. Because one atheist is offended by the cross, he is trying to use the force of the State to compel San Diego to remove the cross. The city has a Constitutional right, both state and federal, to proclaim it's religious principles. If people do not like it, they can petition the city, and if that fails, they can get rid of the city officials and install those who are like-minded. However, this wasn't going to happen because the people have overwhelmingly approved the city's effort to keep the cross. hence, the city's position is a reflection of its people. Therefore, Chaney and LoBue's counterexample is simply fallacious: it's a false analogy. Chaney wonders if the writer would have no problem if the city built a large dome on Mt. Soledad and called Muslims to prayer, and LoBue asks the same type of question, instead with an upside down cross.
As I mentioned above, it's a false anaolgy because the people do have a say in city's politics. If the city attempted to do any of these things, the people would probably not allow it, and would petition the city or remove the officials. If this doesn't happen, then the people have given its consent. Still, the point that the original columnest made would prevail, even with these alleged counterexamples. If a Christian them tried to sue the city over the dome, then the point still remains: using the force of the State to get one's way because he is intolerant of what the people want.
That's the point of the column. The ACLU, and it's operatives, are so hostile to religion that any public display by the government is wrong. They are intolerant that maybe, just maybe, the people would like to express their appreciation of their faith.