Eastbayri.com

Dear Allah,

Help me write a righteous column.

So, maybe, somewhere, a Muslim columnist might be entertaining such an aforethought. Not too many readers around here would probably have a warm and fuzzy feeling in reading such an essay. Yet, “O, Heavenly Father” seems to bring out the cheerleaders of Christianity, some of whom acted mightily unchristian toward a teenager and a judge who was just following the law as he saw it.

What are we to make of the supposedly sterling students of Catholicism who have threatened the life of a girl who legally challenged the display of a prayer banner hanging in her Cranston public school? Some classmates are ostracizing her for exercising her so-called God given right as a citizen to utilize legal procedures to vindicate a position she holds. Of course, their parents are MIA. Far be it from them to urge their little darlings to act actually like Christians. Judging from the adults who have called or hosted talk radio shows, they also have missed some critical catechism classes about loving thy neighbor.

Despite all the sanctimonious display of sentiment, the case of the Cranston “prayer banner” is not about the First Amendment or political correctness. Certainly, this public discourse is appropriate and encouraged. The United States Supreme Court might even reach a different result given the court’s present membership, however, Judge Ronald Lagueux, a conservative Republican appointee to the bench, most certainly was following the state of the law even if he personally might have wished otherwise. That’s what judges are supposed to do and should be commended when their personal bias is set aside to follow the rule of law. What happened, however, in the debate about his ruling and the young lady’s challenge was the derailment of discussion into ad hominem attacks.

I suspect that folks who were “out-Christianizing” each other by supporting “religion” haven’t seen the inside of a confessional for a long time. “Me thinks they doth protest too much” certainly flirted through my thoughts. Discussing people who have a different view from the majority often disintegrates, as it did in this case into an analysis of what is mentally wrong with them. Just as appalling is the total disregard of what the Constitution’s role is in defending a minority viewpoint.

That’s right. The forefathers in this great country often saw that the majority could fend for themselves. It is the person of the minority position who needs the protection of law to uphold their free exercise. Rather than be trampled by the position du jour, the Constitution will uphold the same freedoms for those who may disagree with the majority viewpoint.

Why else would a criminal law system rather see the guilty go free than a man wrongly convicted? The very beauty of the rights that inure to citizens is that they need not be in lockstep with a majority position. Nobody knew better than the Europeans, who fled England and its mandated religion to come to the United States that country-sponsored religion is insidious and often distorted into self-dealing by politicians. The pilgrims suffered firsthand the intrusion of “group thought” on their freedom.

Instead of the recent incident being a great opportunity to re-commit to the ideals of this country and the true exercise of religion by example rather than by tongue, far too many citizens just blew it. Just as some readers here might not like the prayer above that starts this column emblazoned in public places, so too there are bona fide citizens who objected to the Christian recitation. Isn’t it about time that we have a public debate without demonizing those who have a minority viewpoint? Perhaps then we can be both good citizens and religious practitioners without diminishing the human rights of others. Amen.