I've been worried for some time that the American public in general and my generation in particular has become increasingly ignorant of critical thinking in terms of politics, law, government and the like. Verification of this premise has been upheld time and again as articles in the local paper and from various news agencies continue to report a complete lack of understanding and reveal an overwhelming lack of serious thought about such serious issues. A case in point arose this week in a nearby community. I will leave the details out as the important issue is the fundamental ideas underpinning this and many other events of outrage ocurring on a daily basis nationwide. The crux of the matter was a symbol of Christianity removed from a public place by a city coucil board due to a lawsuit filed and the accompanying fears that a legal defense would be too costly on an already depleated town budget based solely on "the seperation clause".
I put that last phrase in quotes because it was a direct quote from the news report I heard as I was working on some other things that caused me to jump out of my seat and exclaim to my wife "the what clause!?!" I assumed what was being referenced was the statement regarding seperation of church and state that appeared in a personal letter that is in no way binding in any document recognized in the establishment of this nation. My questions naturally were why didn't anyone question what was meant by "the seperation clause", why didn't the office receiving this filing to sue the township reject it out of hand and what must our nation be coming to when actions such as these are allowed to be passed off as legitimate practice. I discovered that my assumption was correct and that there are a lot of other questions that need to be asked when any issue like this arises in public discourse.
Question #1: It is true that Thomas Jefferson wrote the letter which contains the phrase "seperation of church and state", however he also penned the pramble to the Constitution (the Declaration of Independence) among whose opening lines are "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What view other than the Judeo-Christian one would provide for a statement such as that? What other belief system used to establish a new government would believe that there is an undeniable truth common to all men that would hold that each and every human person was created by a Creator and endowed by that Creator with intrinsic worth (rights that no other person can give or take away)?
Question #2: What is the problem with holding firm and unwavering to the fundamental principles by which this nation was founded and at the same time allowing all other differing belief systems to live and engage in public life unmolested? I just don't understand why the fact that non-Christian persons live in this country requires an abolition and outright rejection of the very principles that made this nation possible. There is no disconnect whatsoever between a nation saying "We are based fundamentally and solely on Christian principles and biblical truth and will make every decision relative to the operation and function of this state in which you live based on those principles; since part of those principles call for the love of all men you may live among us without fear."
Question #3: Is there any other fight more directly linked to the protection of freedom than this one? I realize we have troops stationed all over the world and many are in harms way even as I write this post, but this is my point. They are fighting for what this nation was established upon, and if that foundation is being eroded while they are overseas fighting to what are they coming home? From a more pragmatic point of view, if those who would reject any Judeo-Christian influence or thinking from even the decision-making processes of the government and legal systems with what do they propose to replace it that would make us more free? Secularism? Naturalism? Materialism? Communism? AnyOtherIsm?
Finally it is worth observing that nothing is less tolerated today than the intolerant Judeo-Christian religion. "Seperation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" are pillars of intolerance to the very principles that provide the underlying foundation on which the pillars are built. In time, those who stand confident on such pillars will issue up a celebratory cry that finally there is freedom from the shackles of religious intolerance that has plagued the nation since it's inception, only to find out that their cries of success had drowned out the noise of the cracking of the foundation on which they stood.
We will no doubt hear more cases; all different in the specifics, but all the same in fundamentals. I have used the imagery of pillars and foundations; the framework of the nation supported by ideas and ideals well known and unconfused at inception but now clouded and sullied by bad thinking and modern misconceptions. It is not very different than walking out to the end of a branch while setting fire to the trunk. In the meantime perhaps someone can bring some meaningful answers to my questions.
Since the Founding Fathers believed that the basis of our individual freedom was a Creator who endowed us with rights, it seems ludicrous that the concept of "separation of church and state" would mean "do not allow the Creator into politics". Worse, it seems obvious that undercutting that foundational principle will, indeed, put an end to the freedom they seek to defend by removing the Creator. Hey ... what's that cracking noise ...?
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDeleteIt's also funny that in our post-modern contemporary culture we utilize our rights as readers to interpret the phrase "freedom of religion" to mean "freedom from Christianity". I wonder if we should also hold to freedom from speech, freedom from assembly, etc? One of the things that puts a burr under my saddle with almost all news programs these days is the constant bickering and fighting over the particulars to make political points while at the same time completely ignoring these fundamental questions. Once, just once, i'd like to see a debate between candidates for an entire session not on the particulars of health care, jobs, economy, etc. but on their answers to these basic fundamental questions. Maybe I ask too much.
This whole debate in happening in my home town. I've been watching it closely along with the message boards on Fox8's websites. People from all over fighting and not listening to each other. Especially the one Luke from Middle Village, NY or Conn. Who agrees it should be taken down, challenges people to solid arguments but never seems to listen when they do. It is clear most of the people in the community know what is right but are finding it hard to debate it in ways that people will listen.
ReplyDeleteGeoff,
ReplyDeleteThanks for coming on and posting a comment. One of the most difficult things to do today is to take a stand, because we live in a day when it seems awards are only given out for compromise. The key it seems to me is to have a solid grounds for holding firm to a position and being passionate to defend what is firm in your convictions.
The first disclaimer is important, having a solid ground for believing. This is the problem with those who would plump for destroying all vestiges of Christianity in American political theatre. There is absolutely no basis for that position, historically, morally or logically.
You live in the area, do you feel that the city leadership is really just buckling under pressure based on cost, that they are coming under pressure to be more secular, or maybe just don't really know foundationally the problems with the whole "seperation clause" issue?
I think, for the Council, is a combination of the legal cost (considering Winston-Salem is dealing with the whole prayer before meetings issue) and not knowing the whole scope with the "separation clause" issue. I pointed out some of these issues with the clause on the Fox8 forums and suggested they get help from the ACLJ (and so have others). Now the question is are they willing to listen to sound advice and fight or go the "easier" route and cave in. I think they have to take action soon because it is getting to personal and becoming less about the issue and more about the person.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you are aware of what is happening with Christine O'Donnell.
ReplyDeleteAs an answer to your Question #1...
ReplyDeleteThe constitution establishes a democratic government with rights and responsibilities of elected officials, a system for the creation of laws and arbitration of disputes between nations, a religion with a belief in a creator, laws governing birth, adoption, and death/funeral rights, rights of foreign nations, and a process for declaring and conducting war. The Iroquois Constitution becomes one of the influential documents in the creation of the U.S. Constitution.
source
Our nation is great and our Judeo-Christian influences are something to be proud of, but we Judeo-Christians are not the sole proprietors of good thought and ideas.
Dan T.,
ReplyDeleteI've not been able to post anything in a dreadfully long time, but it can't be helped. Time is short. I did read your response and didn't want to leave it unattended.
You said: "Our nation is great and our Judeo-Christian influences are something to be proud of, but we Judeo-Christians are not the sole proprietors of good thought and ideas."
Sole proprietors of good thought and ideas, definately not. However, I would say it is the only worldview that is founded on a completely cogent and meaningful view of things that extends across all aspects of human existence (origin, meaning, morality and destiny).