For me it was another one of my moments where I realized 1. we are always making the wrong argument and 2. the general level of reasoning in the 21st century is not all that high.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
What does a written prayer full of vague generalities that has been hanging on the wall for 60 years have to do with the separation of church and state?
No one is forced to recite it or read it or do anything with it. I suppose you are not allowed to shoot spit-balls at it but you can't even shoot spit-balls anymore I have heard.
If the prayer said "divine spirit" instead of heavenly father?
It is fundamentally different from a "ritual" spoken prayer because there is no participation. It is a static display. At this point more of historical significance than anything else.
The article had a poll whether prayer should be allowed in the classroom. I don't think this was a prayer. And I think freedom of speech should allow prayer in the classroom. For my child I would rather no prayer than a prayer with subject matter that I would find theologically offensive and I do not want the schools actively reprogramming my kid's religious beliefs. But, I am not offended by reprinted fake Native American prayers on dream catchers or on inspirational posters or ritual Muslim prayers on wall hangings as long as they don't explode.
Anyway, the girl says she did not notice the hanging until a friend pointed it out, so in fact it was not an obvious sort of "offense."So, do we not study "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" in literature class anymore? I bet we don't... Answered my own question.
I think I will get my daughter to look for books with scripture in the in the School library and then sue. I wonder if the Atheist society would give her $30,000 for a scholarship?
And, the girl says she lost her faith at age 10 when her mother got sick and when the girl called on God he was not there to help her. So the whole thing is a vendetta over a misunderstanding of her own
And she is now a little hero with "great strength of character."
But what can you expect from the courts. The USA now tortures prisoners, can lock you up and hold you forever on
Since I have a diverse range of 39 readers my questions are.
1. Do homilies/written prayers in books and wall hangings have anything to do with the separation of Church and State?
2. Should you be able to sue for anything that offends you?
3, What about the girl's anger at God? Why does her personal problem have to become everyone's problem. Or rather if you really don't believe in God then why do you have to "convert" every one? Is that not the flip side of being a missionary? Or perhaps I should say, why do you care if people want to believe in mythology?
I also lost my faith at age 10 or somewhere around there. I found a book of sermon illustrations in the Bible Book Store in which I read word for word the illustration the revivalist had claimed as his own the night before. It was all a lie...
This whole thing could have been avoided if someone would have just used the phrase, "God works in mysterious ways," and then given her a short course on rationalization.
Now she has to be Carrie A. $%^&*ing Nation, Rosa Parks, and Susan B. Anthony and give the Atheist society woodies. A poster child, "Whoop! Whoop!" There is nothing quite like the earnest sincerity of a kid who has never been hungry and is standing up for something that doesn't matter.
Is there no real suffering in the world?
Posts
1: No, as long as they have some some artistic or educational value other than religious.
ReplyDelete2:Emphatically No! More so than the separation of church and state, we need a separation of lawyers and government.
3:The atheist that is a joiner of atheist societies and who feels the need to convert others has just traded one doctrine for another and is only beating a different colored tambourine. They give the atheists a bad name just as the corrupt mega-church pastors or pedophile priests, or the "you are going to hell unless you believe as I do", do to their religions.
IMHO
ReplyDeleteWhen you get right down to it, most reformers operate on misplaced anger to try forcing others to change while they stay the same. Maybe I'm just cross-eyed or something, but that doesn't look like anything very noble to me.
ReplyDeleteMuddy, I think I agree with you. If you pass out Bibles in school for kids to take home and read in order to convert the students then that is one thing. If you decide to read the Bible in a historical or literary context then it is another.
ReplyDeleteIf you carved the 10 commandments into the front steps of the school and told the kids that it should be obeyed because it was the Word of God then it is one issue. If they are carved into the steps of a 100 year old school it is another. Also, if you recommend the 10 commandments as a good way to live it is different than saying you are required to live that way or face the fires of hell.
Gorges, of course I am the one who is right so it is ok for me to rant.
first of all we need to ask what it meant to the founding fathers when jefferson used the term "separation of church and state". once that is understood then we can understand how to apply it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, but I really can't come up with an intelligent comment. The whole thing just makes me tired and more sure than ever that common sense has left the building.
ReplyDeleteWhy you would direct your ire at someone like Jessica Ahlquist who seeks to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it is not apparent. It is important to distinguish between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class and principals hanging banners in schools), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
ReplyDeleteA word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that--REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives--small government conservatives--should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with "standing" (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government's failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.
Oh, and yeah, there actually are atheists in foxholes. Indeed, the horrors of battle lead some to and some away from belief in god(s). But then, that has nothing to do with separation of government and religion.
Doug, thanks for your well reasoned response. I didn't think to look at it as protecting the constitution. I guess I just saw it as a sincere but perhaps not well reasoned attack on a meaningless wall hanging which happened to refer to the only deity that annoys atheists.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I never thought that there might be atheists in foxholes. I was positive that horrors of war and the thrill of combat would make everyone believe in a divine deity. It seems like random violence and carnage could never destroy anyone's belief system. Now I understand Johnny Get Your Gun and Catch 22 and all those messed up morphine addicts from the Civil war. I guess I'll go listen to "Soldier's Joy" and study my Focus on the Family devotional guides for a while.