Now let's be real. I don't believe in the tooth fairy as I'm sure you don't either. If you do, my next few lines are going to be brutal . . . Seriously, a winged creature that comes into children's rooms, grabs teeth from underneath pillows, and replaces them with money sounds more like some provision of Obamacare in one of the thousands of pages which have never been read. Even as a child, I'm not sure that I ever believed in the Tooth Fairy. So having said that, how idiotic and unintelligent would I be if the tooth fairy, whom I don't believe exists, offended me? Is it truly even possible to be offended by an entity or creation that you do not believe even exists? Does something that does not exist even have the ability, veracity, or probability to offend? If indeed it could, then I suppose I'm offended at this very moment of the Travelocity Gnome. Why, due to not explaining how the travel booking worked, it took an extra 30 mins to get checked into my hotel for Campmeeting due to the front desk employee having to explain the process to the couple in front of us in line. Yeah, sounds pretty pathetic to be offended at a character that in my heart of hearts doesn't exist.
Why make this correlation? Very simply because I was made aware today that an individual who considers himself an atheist has decided to sue the Houston County Board of Education due to God being mentioned, talked about, and prayed to during a graduation ceremony. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but atheists claim that there is no God. He doesn't exist in their opinion. Those who believe in Him are hopelessly holding on to false hope and an age old security blanket. So if an atheist is one who truly believes there is no God, then how can an entity that doesn't exist offend him or anyone else for that matter? That is the question of the hour in my opinion. If this can be so, then I hold to my being offended by the tooth fairy. The question simply put then is: how can anyone be offended by something they don't believe exists?
Some would say, it's not God that offended the atheist or even others. It's the fact that the superintendent and students praised Him and talked about Him in public that brought the offence. And now we get to the meat of the matter. Because now we have the essence of the frivolous, liberal machine attempting to monopolize free thought and expression. If the offence is not the belief in a God who supposedly doesn't exist, but rather the talking about Him, then in essence, this man is offended because someone has a difference of opinion than that in which he holds true. And to that, I would respond that this is America. The Constitution makes it very clear that the government will not endorse a religion to the extent that all other religions would become illegal, but it also is very clear that every individual has the right to worship, or in this case, not worship as he or she pleases. Just as it is this man's right to choose to think God doesn't exist, it's my right to publicly proclaim that He does and that He is coming back soon and the day is coming where every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord . . . . even the plaintiff in this case.
See one of the greatest issues of this case is truly the ability to sue due to offence as God being mentioned and heralded in a public school graduation. I've not read the legal document containing the complaint, but I have read the misguided individual's blatant and pathetic letter sent in to the Macon Telegraph. (By the way, this blog will be sent to the Telegraph in letter form as well. We'll see if the coverage is the same.) In doing so, I can put two and two together. This man feels that the law was usurped in the allowance of these actions to take place. Many other individuals in this free country of ours has used the law of the land as the basis of their lawsuits against Christianity due to the idea of being offended. But there are some issues here.
If indeed, this individual as well as the countless others who claim they were offended feels that the law was broken and/or manipulated and therefore caused them offence, their claim is uninformed, petty, unequivocal, irrational, and illegitimate. Here's why. The very law that this individual and others would claim has been broken is part of a document known as the United States Constitution. This document is the basis for the law of the land for America. It's the document on which our country was founded and established. This document as the basis of law in America is supposedly the force behind this ingenious lawsuit. Here's the contradiction. The Constitutional law of the land is chock full of . . . yep, you guessed it, God. Oh His name isn't mentioned per see' other than as the Creator (that's a capital "C"). He's also listed as the "Supreme Judge" and "Nature's God." You do get to see His authorship, the Bible, all throughout the Constitution. Did you know that if you took every law off the books that had some Biblical reference or linkage, the Constitution would end up being a mere shell of itself? You see the very law in which this man feels protects him from having to endure hearing and public worshiping of God is actually based on God and descends from God. How then can he, or any atheist or agnostic, have legitimate ground arguing with the power of a law based on God by our Founding Fathers that he or she is offended at the public addressing of God. It's like a ship being offended by the water or a bird offended by a tree. The entire claim is illegitimate. The very right to be offended is given to this man by his Creator according to the Constitution. Jefferson clearly acknowledges that we didn't come from some primitive ooze in the far away spectrum of Neverland. He and the other Founding Fathers were very clear: there is a God; He is the giver of life and liberty and rights; His law is supreme; and without Him America would not exist. Read their writings. Read the Constitution. There is no other conclusion to be drawn. Even Thomas Jefferson who has issues with certain things in the Bible and may very well be more of a Deist that a Christian, believed there was indeed a Creator that guaranteed the rights that Americans were to enjoy. Ultimately, those leaning on the law to support their right of offence, should actually be offended by the law they lean upon.
If indeed this individual however is somehow found to have a right to be offended at the mention of a God he says doesn't exist and if he has a right to be offended by others' rights to believe and profess him, then I may have no choice but to file a suit against him using the same logic, for indeed, I'm offended that he's offended by my "certain inalienable" right given to me by my "Creator" to have an opinion and have the freedom to exercise it. Based on this idea of offence, I would like to know how this individual's life was degraded, altered, upset, destroyed, and maimed due to the graduation. Surely at some point people have to start taking ownership of their offences. In what way did the graduation exercise prohibit you from carrying on your life? And if the answer deals with the idea that you had to sit through an hour or so of hearing about God and therefore it caused you pain and suffering sir, may I say your ignorance and unAmerican spirit greatly offends me and the few minutes it took me to read your letter to the Telegraph altered the rest of my day because I couldn't enjoy lunch at Chick-fil-A because walking in I saw a newspaper stand and thought of your letter and lost my appetite . . . Sounds stupid right? Maybe because it is.
So sir, thank you for your military service. I seem to remember you saying you served overseas. I do appreciate that. But may I suggest that you study up on the country you're laying your life down for? The Constitution sets the necessity and provision of a national defense upon the shoulders of the federal government. And the reason for this requirement: to protect the rights and liberties of the American people. You may have fought in a war, but your blatant disrespect for the Constitution, American history, and Founding Fathers is absurd and ridiculous. Whatever the result of your blasphemy and the other pathetic misuses of justice around the nation, may this one thing ring true to you and to every other confused individual. There is a God and you will meet Him one day. You'll meet Him as Father and Judge or Judge only. You will recognize Him as the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords either here or at the Judgment Seat. No law, no judge, no court ruling or case can stop God's remnant of believers from believing in Him, preaching His Word, believing His truths, and exemplifying who He is. God is God whether you believe in Him or not. He doesn't need your permission to be God. In fact, He didn't ask anyone's opinion. He's God. And if for some ridiculous reason you were to win this illegitimate and completely unconstitutional case, may it be known to you and everyone else, that the church is the light of the world, a city on a hill. Even in the darkest of days or with the possible muzzling of freedoms, the light will continue to shine through His followers. All the persecution of Rome couldn't snuff the fire out, and your petty claim of offence will only do as every other persecution did to the early church: become a catalyst for growth and revival. I do pray you find God. He truly does love you, but if you reject Him, do not think that you will walk over His people. There is a war for the souls of man going on, and I've read the end of the Book . . .