NO APOLOGIES ARE NEEDED! by Walter C. Suter Vero Beach Mayor - TopicsExpress



          

NO APOLOGIES ARE NEEDED! by Walter C. Suter Vero Beach Mayor Craig Fletcher and Vice Mayor Tracy Carroll have nothing to apologize for. In case anyone missed it, there’s a controversy here in Vero Beach, Florida, that I expect will be on the national news any day now, if it hasn’t been already. The controversy was generated over Fletcher and Carroll’s opposition to a proclamation setting aside June 16th through June 23rd as “Humanist Recognition Week”. The resulting furor is a result of our society redefining the concept of “tolerance”. “Tolerance” was once a concept that meant that you could espouse what you will, and not be persecuted. “Tolerance” did not mean that one had to recognize another’s viewpoint, religious or otherwise, as of equal worth and value as their own; rather, being “tolerant” meant that persons would extend to folks the right to be different, and to express different viewpoints, however questionable, without pre-emption or undue persecution for those viewpoints. It didn’t mean that you were entitled to immunity from opposition to your ideas, or negative feedback from your opponents. What was respected was your RIGHT to express a viewpoint, not necessarily the content of the viewpoint. (Was George Wallace merely expressing a different viewpoint than Martin Luther King that deserved to be recognized as being of equal worth? You tell me.) Now, however, “tolerance” supposedly means much more. It means that in order to be tolerant, one must actively recognize that someone else’s viewpoint, including, (indeed, especially) one’s “religious perspective” be “treated equally”. What that means gets interesting when you objectively explore the concept as far as it can go. The idea that people, and even a city council (for purposes of approving a non-binding resolution) have to “treat all religious PERSPECTIVES (emphasis added) equally” is absurd at some point. The Humanists (who received their proclamation with two (2) dissenting) . Much has been made about the comments of Mayor Fletcher and Vice Mayor Carroll, but little attention has been given to the Proclamation, itself: Whereas, the Constitution of this land recognizes that all religious perspectives be treated equally; and Whereas, as a nation and community of citizens from so many diverse backgrounds and beliefs, the only way we can solve our problems is through cultivating intelligent, and ethical interactions among all people, with tolerance and respect; and Whereas, our nation and community face many problems, from creating jobs, educating our children, reducing violence, protecting our citizens, and guarding the integrity of scientific research, we must call upon compassion guided by reason to solve these problems, and Whereas, lasting legacies of the use of the scientific method and the power of reason have been left for the benefit of humanity by great Humanists, such as Dr. Jonas Salk, Dr. Albert Einstein, Dr. Carl Sagan, Dr. Isaac Asimov, and many others, Now, therefore, I; A. Craig Fletcher, Mayor of the City of Vero Beach, Florida, do hereby proclaim that the week of June 16 through June 23, 2013 be known, designated, and set aside as “Humanist Recognition Week” in Vero Beach in recognition of the contributions to the quality of life in Vero Beach by the Humanist Community. So what’s the big deal? Well, two (2) paragraphs are a big deal. The first paragraph is just dead wrong, and adopting such wording makes the Vero Beach City Council party to the spread of misinformation. Must ALL religious groups receive recognition from the Council (as the Humanists have) in order to “treat equally other religious perspectives”? Must the City commend the Branch Davidians? The Nation of Yahweh (whose followers worship Hulon Mitchell, a/k/a “Yaweh Ben-Yaweh”, a Federal Inmate, as a messiah)? Polygamist Sects? The Unification Church? Voodoo? Wiccans? Occultic Practitioners? The Church of Satan? These are “religious perspectives”, are they not? These groups certainly have the right to preach, to proselytize, to practice their faith, but are the PERSPECTIVES espoused by these groups to be considered of equal worth and value to the religion of your choice? And, more importantly, are groups operating from one of these “religious perspectives” entitled to positive affirmations in the form of a Proclamation issued by any governmental body, just because that governmental body may have given such a proclamation to some other group with another “religious perspective”. I certainly don’t think so, and I don’t think that the Vero Beach City Council ought to affirm such an ideal in its public record. The right to preach, proselytize, and practice such faiths does not require the government to regard one “perspective” as the equal of the other; “respect” is for the RIGHTS of the individual, and not necessarily for the SUBSTANCE of the ideas espoused by that individual. That part has to be earned on its own merits. The other big deal is the third paragraph, which, after citing a number of societal problems, states that “we MUST (emphasis added) call upon compassion GUIDED BY REASON (emphasis added) to solve these problems . . .” With this paragraph, the Vero Beach City Council goes on record endorsing (however unintentionally) the idea that as a community and as a nation, we will solve our problems by appeals to reason, and not by turning to God. This is a big deal, because it is the Council actively taking the position that God has no role in the solution of our society’s problems, and it goes to the heart of what Humanism is. Whether Humanists are atheists, agnostics, or something else, is a matter of semantics. A local Humanst pastor, the Rev. Scott Alexander, in the Vero Beach – Indian River County Newsweekly June 4th edition considered it “intolerant” that Vice Mayor Carroll associated Humanism with Athiesm, but, in the same article stated that “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that – WITHOUT THEISM AND OTHER SUPERNATURAL BELIEFS (emphasis added) – affirms our human ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives.” Now I don’t question that there are many humanists that are, indeed, kind, ethical, concerned with the less fortunate, honest, etc. Such virtues are certainly not limited to Christians. But as a Christian and a Fundamentalist, Pentecostal Christian at that, I note that the City of Vero Beach, by adopting a resolution with this wording, essentially rejecting the premise of Christianity that our God is “a very present help in trouble”. That “Those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Perhaps it is the lack of theological awareness of the culture of today, but you cannot affirm the “guided by reason” statement in the proclamation without rejecting the idea of Man being ultimately dependent upon God. The proclamation doesn’t even suggest that “reason” itself is God-given. You can’t endorse one ideal here without rejecting the other, even if the rejection is sub silentio. All of this leads up to the matter of the demands that Mayor Fletcher and Vice Mayor Carroll “apologize” for “being intolerant” and “rude” to Philip Katrovitz, the Humanist who accepted the proclamation, whom Carroll and Fletcher did not shake hands with afterward. I’ll grant that Mayor Fletcher’s statement that he won’t endorse any organization that doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ was a bit over the top. (I don’t ask my plumber or my doctor if they are Christians or not, and I have voted for more than one non-Christian for public office.) But perhaps Mayor Fletcher saw the implications of this resolution that I did, and did not wish to be a part of it. If so, good for him! And if he is guided by the teachings of Jesus Christ, what of it? Elected officials are human beings who are guided by some belief system, and that belief system is not going to be shared by all constituents. But just how is it failing to uphold the Constitution to publicly express that your motivation for your actions as a public official is your faith in Christ? Is it somehow more Constitutional to acknowledge being guided by, say Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov? If it is, then does that mean it is a violation of the Constitution to take action as a public official if the motivation for that action is Christian teaching? If so, then just what is, and is not, Constitutionally-permitted motivation for a public official? As for Vice Mayor Carroll, she did nothing more than bring out into the open what Humanism is, which is a non-theistic philosophy; indeed, a philosophy which rejects theism (per Rev. Alexander). Without being nasty or ranting about it. Good for her! Mr. Katrovitz has been portrayed as a victim in all of this, but the videotape of the Council meeting doesn’t show this. Fletcher and Carroll did refuse to shake Mr. Katrovitz’ hand, but that was after (A) Mr. Katrovitz called them both liars, and (B) attempted to use the public podium to propulgate his philosophy. (I doubt I would have shaken Mr. Katrovitz’s hand immediately after he called me a liar; it would be a moment the Bible tells me is a time to refrain from embracing.) Mr. Katrovitz was declared out of order by the chair, and told to cease and desist, which he initially refused to do. Mr. Katrovitz was verbally aggressive and combative. Mr. Katrovitz’s actions that this Proclamation was part of a political agenda of the Humanists, to get their philosophy affirmed on the public record of a governing body, and he was upset that this wasn’t approved unanimously. This WASN’T a neutral proclamation; if you had eliminated the first and third paragraphs, it would have been relatively neutral, but those paragraphs were paragraphs that choose one world view over another. And I’m sure Mr. Katrovitz knows that. Mr. Katrovitz entered the rough and tumble of politics and found it rough and tumbling. I don’t necessarily wish for Mr. Katrovitz to apologize, but he’s no victim in this, and he’s not owed an apology in this matter. By anyone.
Posted on: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:27:50 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015