HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 30, 2005 “This American Life” is an NPR entertainment show; it doesn't usually deal with political issues. Recently, a very fine show about God in America aired. Here is a link. About 38 minutes in, you will hear some buffer music and the host will introduce Sweeney's [of Saturday Night Live fame] piece - an excerpt from her one-woman show; movie plans are in the works. It's an excellent bit, very funny, very emotional – it may bring tears to your eyes... For anyone interested in the debate between the secularists and the and anti-secularists, I recommend listening to the whole piece. It starts off showing some examples of how the issue gets treated in reality, the teaching of creation and/or evolution for example – this may surprise you. It also alludes to Brooks and his ideas about the “rule by law” as opposed to theocracy or men. The first bit is about a local politician from a small town, a Christian, that simply followed the law and was rebuked for doing so from the White House itself! This example points out that the Constitution is not nearly as clear as Brooks would like to think; there is much open to debate. If every politician would follow the law as that man did, we wouldn't have so much debate. One bit that I found disturbing was when the host talked with a chap that wants a very religious government. It's obvious that the host takes the secularist position; he asks about what we have now, which is sort of a live and let live environment. A person can be as religious as they want – Christian media abounds and is increasing substantially, for example. He asks the chap about the status of gays in a Bible-based America. The chap didn't answer – he didn't want to “offend gay listeners”! Ironically, the secularists are accused by right-wingers of “toe stepping”, but it's the secularists (many of which are people of faith), which do not want to remove the ability of Christians to worship. The same cannot be said if the other side wins this culture war; they genuinely want to force their specific view onto everyone else; this is what it means, by definition, to have a Bible-based government or a Christian Constitution. Is this fear-mongering on the part of Liberals? Well, perhaps some oppose Christmas displays to avoid the “slippery-slope” towards a theocracy. We do have a good Conservative example of a group which fights just as hard to avoid any and all legislation no matter how sane against their own cause: the NRA. Take the gun-show loophole for instance. If you listen to the audio, you will hear examples of bills under consideration right now which are rather clear steps away from secularism. Many would consider this a step towards theocracy... In any case, public education is a favorite battle field in this “fight”. It should reflect a pluralistic society by teaching the Bible as literature (if anything) instead of something “divine”. On Sunday or Saturday, everyone is free to split up and head off to their individual churches for religious education. This isn't persecuting Christians, it's the reality of Christian life in a secular nation. To use a talking point from the Conservative hand-book: That American Christians think they are persecuted in America is an offense to the historical Christians which really were persecuted. Back to Brooks' piece, briefly, the second part is philosophical and interesting, but can't work backwards to strengthen the first. My philosophical views also show some truths: mixing religion and government is dangerous [historical evidence is clear], preferring one religion over another is wrong. The religion attempting to gain [actually, it already has] preferential treatment is of course the Christian faith. That's a bit of a misnomer, since it's actually a narrow slice of Christianity making the actual push, however, polls show that most Americans thus far generally approve. This will change; Islam is the fastest growing faith here in the US and abroad. Precedents set now which allow religion into government will cause strife from future Christians, as they increasingly become a plurality instead of a super-majority. This is why the Framers wanted religion to steer clear... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". If a non-Christian walks into a public setting, like a courtroom, does being asked to swear on a Bible (if you don't adhere to that religion), violate establishment? You are being told, in effect, that if you are not part of this faith, then you can't be honest. Doesn't this also prohibit you from worshiping as you see fit, if the result of your choice is legal discrimination? The monument placed in a situation where it can have this kind interference to equality clearly violates the First Amendment. I also don't buy the state vs. federal law; that's a distraction. Clearly, if a state adopts a religion in practice, it would violate and come into conflict with the federal law/constitution; this can very quickly lead to state vs federal rights – often used to support or refute any dicey issue. That bit is a bit vague, after all – what does it mean, “respect an establishment of religion”? Given the secular nature of the Constitution I think any reasonable interpretation, when combined with the “no religious test for public office” bit also found in the Constitution, would side against Moore. The audio link above covers why the Constitution is secular in rather good detail. Recently, the court made some rather sane rulings pertaining to this mess, with a rather large caveat. The caveat is the subjective nature of the intent of the display. If the display is deemed to be part of a historical exhibit, then it's allowable. If the intent is forcing one faith above others, then it violates 'establishment'. Given Moore's comments, it is rather clear that he wants to impose his personal faith onto others. He is on a religious crusade; this is fine as a lay person, but as a public official under the money and purview of the government, it is clearly unconstitutional. Compare this to sexual harassment and free speech. Clearly, sex talk is allowed, even if it happens to offend someone else. But if that someone else is unable to escape hearing the speech, or, is put into a position where refusal to participate in such speech affects their status at work or otherwise binds them in some way against their will by becoming an issue of control, then we have a problem. As with religious displays, the circumstances surrounding the dispute become relevant. Hey, it's a complex world. This is certainly a win for trial lawyers. One excellent end to this non-stop litigation would be for more people of faith to support secularism, and enjoy the rich religious life possible in America! Demographics are changing – it's in the best long term interest for Christians particularly to support secularism. Christians need to ask themselves if losing short-term evangelizing opportunities are worth avoiding long-term precedents which may favor future Muslims or other religions which are currently in the minority. Anyone which has listened to the audio knows that Liberals are slammed a bit. An otherwise great speaker claims that Liberals like to say that the Founders were not Christians, and goes on to say that Liberals dislike the various religious quotes from the Founding Fathers. I'd like to clarify this a tad; the short response is that both “sides” use quotes from the Founders to support their position. Most of the Founders, like most Americans then and now are Christian - the key figures, most of the folks on money, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and so on, were however not Christian per se. We have good reason to believe that Washington was a deist, although he lived a Christian life. The same can be said for other Founders – recall also that the Enlightenment was one of the principles that our revolution was based upon. As for quotes, there are many pro-religion quotes, and many anti-religion quotes. Some quotes seem to praise and glorify God, while others are downright offensive to faith – take your pick. Famous secular quotes include statements that Christianity is historically bad for men, that the Christian faith is not the source for common law, the very famous quote about the wall of separation, etc. You can look them up, they are easy to find. One must take these with a grain of salt because the Founders were humans, and highly politically motivated. A few of them ran their own newspapers, which they used to fling mud at each other. Religious speak was how to reach the people in those days, much more so than today. Even a deist like Washington had to speak in such a way. Clinton is a fine analogy. Conservatives love to hate him, but he could speak the language of the people, be it talking about his underwear to the MTV crowd, or religion to more Conservative folk. Speech aside, Clinton is a Liberal, well read, elite. Nevertheless, the Founders chose a secular Constitution; given the Christian nature of the people at the time, this in and of itself is a profound statement of secularism. Five attempts to alter the constitution to make it a “godly document” have failed. Lincoln would have nothing to do with such an idea, for example. The motto the Founders picked was not, “In God we Trust”, but, “Out of many, one”. Which motto is more inclusive? Which would better represent both myself and other Americans which write for UK (Ken Hughes for example)? Maybe the Founders had it right. This motto was changed on money as a consolation prize after one of the five attempts failed. God wasn't mentioned in the pledge until the Eisenhower administration – very recent history relative our nation's age. Prayer breakfasts and prayer rooms in Congress came around at the same time – it was a political move to give Americans an identity of sorts and separate us from the USSR. As the audio points out, other attempts at using fear have been tried in the past to end the secular nature of the government. One of the five attempts to turn the constitution into a non-secular document came about because of the Civil War. Folks were told at the time that the reason there was so much suffering was because God was angry that he was left out of the constitution. This sounds familiar... ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
