Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Welcome to another edition of American Christian Flashpoint! Today I want to delve into the sore topic of prayer in schools, commandments in front of civil service buildings, and Creationism/Evolutionism dual teaching.
I was intrigued on what I recently read about the display of the Ten Commandments outside of courthouses. When all of this was happening, I had not paid much attention to what was going on, and in the current days it seems this is rolled up into a virtual assault of the non-Christian Americans against the Christian Americans.
If you want to read more about this, click here to visit a portion of Wikipedia's page about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. What I found was intriguing--that the Supreme Court had ruled both ways in different circumstances of religious displays (which I didn't know before reading that). Now, I understand that the Supreme Court has been setting a broader interpretation of the Establishment Clause since the sixties, but I wasn't alive before then, and I couldn't attest to that myself. I've heard it argued that this represents the censoring of our Christian heritage as a nation, which is difficult for me to swallow on two parts: One, I don't think our nation is (or was) as Christian as it is sometimes bulked up to be (see the First Amendment, above), and second, I somehow equate this to the Dixie Flag in the South--to some it expresses heritage, but to others, it expresses oppression and prejudice. I'm totally in favor of the Ten Commandments not expressing prejudice, even to non-believers. And, on a bright note, if there's no stone tablet in front of the courthouse, nobody can claim that Christianity was the reason they lost in court!
And state-sanctioned prayer in school. To that I gently and respectfully rebuke: What are you, nuts?! The last group that I want teaching theology to my (currently rhetorical) kids is the State! Talk about giving pearls to swine! Even going to school in a private Christian school in my 7th and 8th grade, there was enough teaching there that drove me away from who I now understand is Christ. I think handing over the mantle of spiritual teaching of your kids to a third party is a really risky business.
And lastly the whole Evolution and Creation studies of How The World Began--this one I can't argue in favor of just evolution being taught. I must agree that I think Darwin's Evolution Theory has become a religion to many people, and they do not want to see their golden calf be called for what it is. I would like to have teachers stress that evolution is still very much a theory, but ultimately I've resigned this argument and chalk it up to the fact that our government won't always lean in our favor (see the First Amendment, above). Although the Intelligent Design theory is showing movement, and may one day replace the Evolution Theory of Darwin, it hasn't by a long shot--and I want to reiterate that I don't want a teacher (who may very well not be a Christian) teaching kids theology. Just trouble all over!
Although it may seem at times that Christianity is losing a foothold in the mainstream culture of America, I don't really think it's that bad. Through history, Christianity seems to exponentially multiply when put under pressure. If you don't trust history, trust God on this one. We're to expect persecution because of Him, remember! And we're to rejoice!
And so, there you have it. Of course, remember that these thoughts I have didn't come from Mt. Sinai (get it?). There's room for variance here. I'll still eat with you if you disagree with me. These opinions I raise have zero value when placed next to God's Word, and I'm well aware I could quite possibly be absolutely wrong (or partially right, for that matter). And feel free to rebuke me on it, just make sure you have some Biblical proofs ready and you do it in gentleness in respect. That will make for some good fellowship, and we both could come out of it with praise for the Creator. I definitely wouldn't pass up on that opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for the thoughtful and well written post about the First Amendment. I have a couple of comments for the blog world to consider. First, we must remember that the 'Christian Heritage' of our country is not written in a formal or legal document instituting Christianity as the 'official' religion of our country. In fact, the founding documents, as has been well established, make just the opposite implication. However, our Christian heritage as a country lies within many of the people who wrote the founding documents. They were Christian. Many prayed for wisdom in creating the documents that allowed our country the greatness, freedom, and diversity that it now has. If you read the speeches of some of these individuals, you see that they were devotedly Christian in their beliefs and public persona. The heritage is in the people and not the institution.
ReplyDeleteI believe God blessed these founders with wisdom and foresight that has made our country a means of blessing to many around the world. It has also been a launch point for many evangelistic ministries that have helped to spread the Gospel around the world. It is with that gratitude that I like to remember our early American history and those that made it happen. However, I don't think it was the intent of our forefathers to require Christianity in order to be a productive citizen of America. Quite the contrary.
The stone tablets of the Ten Commandments demonstrate our heritage. Although many would say that the Ten Commandments in and of themselves do not represent a specific religion (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism use these as foundation), it is well understood that these art designs are representative of what was a predominant Christian culture from our foundation until only recently. Now, many want to re-write history and discount the identity of American history. I call that revisionistic and inappropriate. I understand that the ‘religious right’ may be scary to some who believe it is the motivation of this movement to force Christianity and its ‘rules’ on society as whole. However, those that are confident in the system of checks and balances incorporated into our government by our forefathers should not be concerned at all. The conservative movement(s) is as much entitled to their views as liberals or independents. And, I should add, they should be allowed the same dignity in representing their issues of concerns as others.
It is also important to remember that prayer in public (schools or otherwise) is NOT a sanctioning of a religion. This is why private prayer is allowed in public school. I am in agreement that Christian prayers or other specific religious prayers should not be part of our educational system. That would clearly violate the establishment clause. But, allowing prayer in school in no way implies that the state is teaching religion as was implied by the original post. It is also true that teaching intelligent design is also not teaching theology as was implied by the original post. The theory of intelligent design is a scientific endeavor not mutually exclusive to evolution or creationism and can be studied independent of any theological overtones.
Finally, let me comment on the idea that Christianity, although not a state sanctioned religion, has an historical relevance to what our country has been and what it can be in the future. God created this world out of nothing (going against what we call the 1st law of thermodynamics). After creation, the world has been slowing decaying (2nd law of thermodynamics). This entropic effect, sometimes referred to as disorder, is well known in science. In essence, it states that everything is moving toward disorder from order. This has many implications in science but also has implications in the order (or disordering) of society. In our American culture, it is my belief that Christianity has been a moral counterforce to the natural decay and depravity of the culture over time. I am not implying that Christianity should be ‘mandatory’ only implying that Christianity has provided this country with a moral tendency for decency and proper conduct. This could be one reason that the founders integrated our Christian symbols within the fabric of our institutions. They understood that without a counterforce to moral decay, our societies would move toward just that. History is strewn with societies where moral decay devastated and eventually was a culprit in extinction of the society/country. In that sense, Christianity in the past (and possibly today) has served our country well in upholding many of the ‘institutions’ that have given us the opportunity to progress as a society and enjoy the freedom our forefathers envisioned for each of us.
Now, with a lack of regard for our society, many are over-reaching in their desire to see all aspects of religion and the moral compass removed from the public square. In fact, the thought of a moral majority makes some fearful that we may be taken over by a group of fundamentalist and required to live by their ‘rules’. In fact, for most of our history, America has been governed by those with a moral compass that were not afraid to call right, right and wrong, wrong. Many read the early documents of our country and forget that our country is not document but a living and breathing society that will surely be devastated by the amoral actions sanctioned by our government.
I have heard it said that we cannot legislate morality. But, our government has been doing that for 200 years. That is the purpose of laws – they define a moral and/or societal standard and then affix legal penalties to violating this standard. We are a Nation of rules and laws. Laws give society that is under the curse of societal entropy the force with which to overcome this effect and maintain a high quality of living for all its citizens.
Your comments are welcomed!
I think that the word "religion" causes a lot of confusion. I've heard some peole say that it means what we would now call a church "denomination" - thus it's o.k. for the federal government to promote Christianity but not any particular denomination of it. That would be my preference politically, but I don't know whether or not this was really what was intended by the writers of the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteI looked at a Webster dictionary published in 1828 to see if that would clarify anything, and it defined religion as basically any of the world religions that have a deity concept. (Grossly oversimplified in my words.) What surprised me is that in the definition, Webster specifically said that atheism was not religion. This lands Americans where we are today with the impression that avoidance of anything to do with the deistic world religions is the only safe way to uphold the first ammendment. I think this is a mistake.
The truth is that all of us, whether "religious" or "unreligious" in Websterian terminology, look to some source to supply the functions of deity. Or if you're uncomfortable with the word "deity" how about "ultimate worldview source" (or UWS for short).
Everyone looks to their UWS to determine what is true and what is false. Most unreligious people will appeal to a body of scientists to establish this, but this is just as faith-based as the Christian who looks to the Bible to determine truth from falsehood or the Hindu who says all the truths of the Atheist and Christians are just an illusion that need to be escaped.
Education cannot be religiously neutral. All education must appeal to some basis for determining what is true from what is false as well as for determining the meaning of anything taught. It will either appeal to the God of the Bible or to some other deity or UWS.
The same goes with ethics. We all appeal to our UWS to determine whether something is good or bad, and depending on which source you appeal to, you will get different results. Some will appeal to the democratic process to decide, and to call a spade a spade, that would be a form of humanism. No other UWS besides the God of the Bible is going to provide the 10 commandments as we know them.
If Christians concede that an official does not need to be informed by 10 Commandments, then this concession is a decision to support a different deity or UWS than the Biblical one.
There are many other functions of deity, but I don't want to make this too long. I'll just mention security. What makes you feel secure? What will save you from bad things happening to you? Your UWS will tell you. And the answer could reveal more syncretism than you might want to admit.
O.K. I'll shut up now.