In a time when the global economy is failing, the American economy is failing, Americans are dying all over the world, the Palestinians and the Israelis continue to bomb themselves to oblivion, some citizens of the United States of America want to take the President to task for including all Americans in his inaugural speech. I am not a constitutional scholar, but, the last time I read the First Amendment, it guaranteed freedom of religion. By extension, does that not also guarantee freedom of no religion?

According to Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va., "The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are." It seems that the Bishop needs to acquaint himself with social realities. The majority population of America does identify as Christians. That is a freedom of religious choice. Is the Bishop suggesting that anyone who is not a Christian is not an American? President Obama extended a welcome for all Americans to help fix a nation that is broken. As we have a separation of church and state, is that not the right thing for the President to do?

I adhere to Christian beliefs, but, I certainly do not feel "redefined". The President of the United States is the political leader of the country, Bishop Jackson, not the religious leader.

One Forward Two Back

I recall that when I was a small child, my mother constantly reminded her children that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was the greatest organization in the country. My mother was passionate about the mission of the NAACP and her children developed respect and admiration for the organization. As an adult, the NAACP was directly responsible for my employment with a major steel manufacturer. Over the three decades of my employment, I experienced and witnessed, diminishing racial discrimination and bigotry within and without the workplace. I, as my mother, was a champion of the NAACP. We, of African descent, had taken a step forward.

My admiration began to wane when the NAACP focus, at least locally, in my perception, became an advocacy for minimizing the responsibility of criminal behavior by African American thugs. In my mind, a pervasive social reality was being developed. My thoughts were expressed and debated at social gatherings and high school reunions and then sent to the recesses of my brain with the opinion that we were taking two steps backward.

When Barack Obama was elected to the office of President of the United States of America, I gave due props to the NAACP for all of the dedication and tireless effort the organization put forth in being instrumental in the monumental achievement. Unfortunately, the great stride forward was countered by two strides backward, when Alabama NAACP president, Edward Vaughn publicly derided the participation of the Azalea Trail Maids in the innagural parade because their costuumes, "...remind someone of the plantation in 'Gone With the Wind'." Mr. Vaughn, a group of women wearing Ante-Bellum dresses are not exactly the same thing as Grand Wizards and Kleagles sporting sheets and pillowcases.

Even though any person with reasonable intelligence recognizes that Mr. Vaughn was not the spokesperson for the national body, NAACP elicits a perception associated with the national body. His apology illuminates another social reality: a bell cannot be unrung and not all of the egg has been wiped from the face. Mr. Vaughn provided powerful fodder for the conservative radio talk show hosts.

Hair Today Gone Tomorrow

One thing that we firmly believe in at the University of Social Realities, is everything that affects "African-Americans" is not racist. You just don't need to be a phi beta kappa to understand that unless you own the company, you don't dictate policy. Dreads and "things" sticking randomly out of your head may be your vehicle of self-expression. When you get a job, however, you are not representin' da hood, 0r, da homies; you are representing the company that employs you. The social reality is that the company has an image that drives its marketability and its bottom line. If you show up for an interview with the above mentioned hair styles and do not get hired, is it really racist hiring practices, or, is it your ignorance of social realities? That is not to say that racist hiring practices do not exist. But it is like paying your bills on a real short paycheck. You put all the bills in a hat and draw how many you can afford to pay. If you are hounded by a bill collector, the next pay period, you don't put that bill in the hat. So even if not all qualified "African-American" candidates are hired, interviewed even, the social reality is to get into the hat.

Etiquette

Etiquette is more than just pointing your pinky finger while sipping a beverage. In the realm of social realities, etiquette is related to social interactions rather than to ethical behavior, although the two are not mutually exclusive. We may believe that there is little relevance to knowing which utensil to use at a formal meal. The social reality is that there is considerable relevance attached. No matter the extent of our expertise or prowess, we are all judged by the social company that we keep. Although our brilliance may be recognized and appreciated within our work environment, if we conduct ourselves as country bumpkins while dining formally, we potentially restrict our upward mobility. We all have perceptions of how things should be. We don't always see the social realities at play. A napkin around the neck and drinking from the finger bowl just don't git it.

Keeping and Bearing Arms

Since we don't seem to value history very highly in this country any more, we seem to have lost perspective of what the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution means. We are a nation born of revolution. An armed militia fought against what they considered government oppression and violation of individual and civil rights. If we learn nothing else from American history, we must learn that citizens waged war against the recognized government. The salient social reality is that the government was the oppressor. In drafting the Second Amendment, the founding fathers exhibited infinite wisdom in guaranteeing that citizens would always have the means to defend themselves against an oppressive government.

The question that begs to be asked is: "Who is the beneficiary of an unarmed populace?"