Date: Wed Nov 26 14:31:06 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: School
At 10:46 AM 11/26/97 0600, you wrote:
Yep, laziness and procrastination are among my other attributes! : ) Seriously,help me understand this. Okay, you personally do not see "practiced Christianity" as a threat, but others must. If not perceived as a threat or potential threat, why are so many against it? I ask that question from the basis of accepting your position that there is no "anti-religion" or "anti-Christianity" motivation behind this. The question is intended to be on the broad scale; not just the Jewish community.
See, the answer has never come just from me as any representative of the Jewish community. References to Judaism have always been limited to examples only of alienation and ostracism that can lead to discrimination and persecution if left unchecked. I specifically disavowed being a representative of Jewish thought early in our discussions.
If you accept that I am not attacking "practiced Christianity," accept that others don't either. In reading the leftist propaganda, as you would call it, there may be a tendency to view what is being said as an attack generally on Christianity as a whole or on sincerely held religious beliefs and practices personally. But if you read that stuff carefully, and take the filters and the blinders off, you'll see the "attack" is on the religious "right," the moral "majority," the political and doctrinal followers of political groups who claim the name of Christ to themselves as evidence of their right to political influence, domination and coercion in matters of faith. It has always been a question of political doctrine, not religious faith, that is being "attacked."
What I have said I believe is no different from what anyone else, including the ACLU and the rest of them durned liberals, say they believe. There are many, many devout, spiritual, god fearing, good Christians who believe precisely as I do on the subject of government entanglement with religion. Far many more in fact than those who subscribe to the politics of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, et al. That's why it's never been a Jewish issue, or an "anti-Christian" issue.
Look closely at that leftist propaganda, with an open eye, and see if it doesn't take pains to distinguish who they're talking about. They're not talking about "all Christians," they're only talking about those whose politics are geared toward using the schools and other public places as places to endorse and promote their religion (which only coincidentally happens to one small sect of Christianity).
“A smart second grader points out the historical inconsistency in the omission of PRAYER before everybody digs in to eat. The kid was right. But the teacher was right to hesitate, because and this is very important the lesson isn't about endorsing or promoting prayer, it's about history. If you want to talk about or teach the history of prayer, that's fine in the law, and Judge DeMent specifically says so in his orders. If you want to use a history lesson as a subterfuge to use the schools as a "mission field" to establish, endorse or promote prayer, you're violating the first amendment.”
The problem with rulings such as this is that it creates a large gray area, not in the mind of the judge or lawyers, but in the minds of teachers, principals, administrators, and the general public.
It does create a gray area, but only because those who instinctively disagree with the result find it easier to rely on hysterics and hyperbole than fully analyze the consequences of what is and is not permissible. Teachers, principals, administrators are all college educated. You've seen through our discussions how deceptive the demagogues can be. That Judge Moore or others who should know better insist on twisting the plain meaning of the orders and opinions does not mean that the orders are themselves unclear. It's like you said earlier. What part of "no" don't you understand? I've seen the recent filings in the case from Judge DeMent. In order to make appealable issues, "our side" just twisted and perverted what he said in those orders. There is so much hysteria about what Judge DeMent said is forbidden, that is expressly authorized in his orders. And I've shared most of that with you already. Only by intentionally twisting what he said, does there become a gray area. And who's doing that? People whom I've already shown you mis quote history, cite legal opinions out of context, etc.
Fear of the law and trying to be "good law abiding citizens" ("Loyal subjects" might be a more descript term with regard to some of our judicially created laws.), they won't go near that line. Thusly, far more liberty and freedoms are suppressed by the "effect" than the "letter" of the law. Should I believe that this is NOT a calculated fallout benefit realized by the left? The effect of such is as much a part of the protest from the right as is the law itself. It is the implementation that hurts.
Yes, you SHOULD believe that an attack on Christianity is not an intended "fallout benefit" from such lawsuits. That point is made abundantly clear, over and over again in all of the legal decisions on the subject. It is government endorsement and promotion of religion that is the only issue. When you take my taxes to pay our teachers to promote your religion to my kids, that's when it becomes an issue. Focus, focus, focus.
“I see your friend's confusion, but this is still just hysteria and hyperbole. Your friend is mixing apples and oranges. Teach history, or promote religion. Don't use the former to do the latter.”
Yes, I believe the teacher has the right under the First Amendment to "say" an audible prayer of thanks before her class. The question of "leading" could be argued, I suppose.
Ah, but Frank. The question of "leading" is the point of contention. "Now, children. Everyone bow your heads as we give thanks to Jesus as the pilgrims did before we eat." That's what we're talking about. It may seem de minimus to you, because you already do that. It's not de minimus to me. And that's the issue. You can't say, "oh, it's just a little prayer." A prayer's a prayer.
Rob, I thought we'd gotten beyond using the ridiculous in our dialog. Your question regarding turning "a history lesson into a prayer meeting" reflects either your ignorance of what prayer meetings are, or you are resorting to using ridiculous expressions. All that does is create emotional argument, with which we get nowhere. You keep insisting on using the term "promote religion."
I really don't think that's ridiculous. Sure, I meant it in a broader sense, not the specific prayer meeting sense. But if a little bitty prayer's alright, what's wrong with a longer prayer? And if a longer prayer is OK, what's wrong with invoking Jesus' name and requiring everyone to bow their heads? And if that's OK.... I mean, where you gonna' stop it, Frank? You think these people who intentionally twist and deliberately mis read the Supreme Court's opinions and Judge DeMent's and Judge Price's orders, and then say they're "confused" are gonna' know where to draw the line? They don't, they prove it time and time again, which is why Judge DeMent has to go into such lengthy detail about what's not permissible and such lengthy explanation that he shouldn't have to about what still is.
Even if it were promotion, which it isn't, compared to what else the government is promoting it is nothing to worry about. I'm eager to get your response to the Presidential promotion of homosexuality in the public schools, just to see if you are using a double standard. If you do, don't give me the "it's not anti-religion" counter again. It would have a very hollow ring.
Hopefully, I can reconstruct the email, because I anticipated that argument and addressed it. Leading the children in prayer is promotion of religion in general. Saying you're doing it because the pilgrims did it, is promotion of Christianity specifically. Comparing it to what you call promotion of homosexuality is not a valid comparison for reasons I'll hopefully be able to reconstruct. But briefly, what the president is "promoting" is tolerance of all people regardless of their sexual orientation, he is not promoting homosexuality as a way of life we should all subscribe to.
Neither this prayer, prayer before football games, nor any other prayer of the type we've been discussing are designed to MAKE people pray. All are welcome to pray if they so choose. That is another ridiculous expression.
I could not disagree more. It has never been merely a matter of coercion. You reduce our months of dialog to a simple definition of prayer, religion and establishment to mean only compulsion which you know is not the definition of establishment, promotion or endorsement that I or the courts grappling with such questions have. The issue is far deeper than that, and after you've read the cases, we can go back and discuss that in more detail if need be.
How much is lost? Very good question. History shows us that the Pilgrims were a religious people. God provided for and preserved them through very difficult times. They thanked God for what He had blessed them with. Today, for many adults and children, giving thanks to God for what he has provided them is part of their belief and way of life. The history lesson was a poignant reminder to that kid that they should be thankful, and if the Pilgrims thanked God for their food, shouldn't they also.
I get a very different lesson from history and the story of the Pilgrims, or at least one that doesn't require subscribing to a belief in God in order to understand the point. So long as the "right" is unable or unwilling to disengage its personal theology from the objective lessons of history, these discussions will go round and round and round. I can learn just as much about the pilgrims as you can WITHOUT having to pray like they did to learn what they went through or how much they appreciated the providence of God. Yes, the lessons is that the pilgrims were thankful, and that the kid should be too. Period. That the pilgrims thanked God in particular, they should learn as well. That the kids SHOULD ALSO thank God for what they've been provided is a lesson to be taught at home and in the church.
What message was conveyed to that second grader about "freedom of religion?" Won't future instruction in government, specifically the First Amendment, seem inconsistent to what he experienced in the second grade? Now he is taught the arrangement of letters of the alphabet in a certain way says, "THE BALL IS RED." and that is what it means. Later when he reads, "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF." how can he understand that it doesn't mean just what it says. (Well, I guess we could explain to him that it wasn't Congress that made the laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion; that it was the courts. But then that is inconsistent with the functions of the three separate branches or our government. Boy, is this kid going to be confused!) What is lost in this process is genuine honesty.
Bullshit. Is your faith in God so tenuous that to tell the story of the Pilgrims without praying while you do it is to deny your faith? Are we to construe the constitution through the eyes of people who came and lived here 150 years before it was written? THAT is historical revisionism. And I'm not going to give you a lesson in elementary civics. Well, maybe I will. Congress didn't make the first amendment. The people ratified. Congress doesn't interpret it, the courts do. That is the separation of powers doctrine.
A child who remains sincere in his religious convictions and learns intellectual honesty in his reading of the law and history will have no problem with what happened in school that day. Such concepts have never been mutually exclusive, except in the minds of the most superficial people who understand neither the law, nor their Bible.
“Obviously, your friend has been soaking up the David Barton propaganda.”
After reviewing some of the stuff (I'm being kind) linked to your web page, one can readily recognize that propaganda has been pushed to a high state of perfection. Fine examples they are! Come on, Rob, we are not supposed to say things like that. In the field of statistics, one data point is meaningless, yet on brief exposure to Barton you label all his work as "propaganda!" That isn't like you. : (
Like I said, re-read that stuff and see how much Christianity itself is attacked versus the *politics* of particular "Christians" like Falwell and Robertson. As to Barton, the emphasis is on the word "propaganda" not Barton himself. I've already shown you with a couple of examples you originally provided that what he *says* is intellectually dishonest, if not intentionally misleading.
And I meant no offense to your friend. I was merely saying I can see where his arguments are coming from. Someone whom I've shown is inherently suspect and easily discredited when it comes to a scholarly analysis of "original intent."
Some of what you say may be legally true; however, history doesn't show a major turning point in the acknowledgment of God in public and government when the First Amendment was ratified.
There never was a "turning point" when it comes to "acknowledgment." The "right" throws that word around when they pray to say they're not praying, they're only "acknowledging God." That, as they say in my field, is a distinction without a difference. You can't lead a group of people in prayer and then just say, "oh, that's not prayer, that's just acknowledging God." Utter foolishness.
That didn't happen until the 1960's, when the Court began to misinterpret our Constitution. Jefferson made it clear (to the Danbury Baptist Association) what he meant by "wall of separation" too, but what difference did that make to justices (and subsequently many others) who didn't want to accept the fact that his words said what he meant. And now, if it supports the (I really don't want to use the term "anti-Christian," but I don't know a term that is apparently more descript.) "agenda of the left," (How was that?) you'll take his words as they appear without questioning what he "really meant." Let's be consistent.
I've got to say when we're talking about what place Jefferson, Madison and others have said religion has in government, that I think I've been consistently consistent. Now, what they were talking about at the time applied to the federal government only. In the 1940's the Court applied the establishment clause of the first amendment to the states, through the 14th amendment. We can go round and round on this one too, but I think I've addressed this many times. Jefferson was not "anti-Christian," but he was anti-religion in federal government. Me too.
My great emotional urge is to say, "Screw the courts!" but I won't.
Ah! But I think you do still. And it continues to color your analysis. The courts have said what they have said. There's been no change in nearly forty years. Before that, the issue just didn't come up. So it's wrong to say there was some fundamental "sea change" in the 60's. The issue didn't come up. Before the 60's there was less than a 20 year window for the issue to come up because the first amendment wasn't applied to the states before that, and the courts were a little busy with other things at the time, like integration, for one.
You've taught me better than that. Thanks.) For the courts to decree that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, carries about as much real weight as saying certain prayers and "IN GOD WE TRUST" is ceremonial deism. To them, in their individual capacities, it may be, but not to many American citizens. Besides that, what right have the courts to strip the citizenry of their religious heritage? You would scream if they were trying to diminish your Jewish heritage.
I would scream if the courts decided to tell me what I believed and what my forefathers believed about my "heritage." Nobody's diminishing your heritage by saying you can't use public facilities to promote your religion. You have no heritage of using public facilities and funds to establish, promote or endorse your religion. That many American citizens may personally believe otherwise on this ceremonial deism idea is precisely the freedom they have under the first amendment. The freedom to ascribe religious values to otherwise secular holidays. Nobody's stopping them from doing that, in their homes, in their churches. The only question is whether they may use the power and trappings of government to foist their religious beliefs on others in the name of a history lesson. They can't.
To pray or not to pray is your choice. Considering James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father..." as being true, as I do, I shall acknowledge the source of my blessings, especially, on Thanksgiving, in keeping with the spirit and intent of our National holiday. Thank God we are both Americans. What would happen to me if I were in Israel and didn't observe their holidays? Rocks thrown, as you mentioned before? How can one "be thankful" without being thankful to "someone?" ; )
Well, I can be thankful without being thankful to God. That you do not conceive of being thankful any other way is a limitation perhaps you can examine at your leisure. And your example about Israel is precisely my point. The failure to observe the religious customs of the majority, in the absence of some other protections like those in the first amendment, will result in rocks being thrown. Do not even think to question me on this. Look at the newspaper articles from Pike County again and tell me if my child does not bow his head in school while a prayer to Jesus is said over supper, that he will NEVER be ostracized, or a swastika will not be painted on his locker. And don't tell me "kids will be kids" either. It is the benign neglect of the teachers and administrators that gave those kids the idea in the first place.
Ask your kids who Gaia is. I'm sure they have been taught to respect the "Mother Earth Goddess." (No they don't promote "religion in public schools," do they?) No, the kids should not be made to fast for Ramadan, but if studying that holiday, they could be invited to observe the fast, just to be more understanding and sympathetic of Islamics. Peyote? Might be hard to come by. How about if they substituted cannabis instead? Hey, aren't they already doing that at school? ; )
Yup, and all the hard stuff too. ; (
But you make a point that invites closer scrutiny, because it too, makes my point. Being "invited to observe" is very different than being expected to participate. And I made that point clear earlier, that a prayer as part of the drama or re enactment is perfectly fine. People are being invited to observe what happened. The ACLU has no problem with that. The lessons of history are taught in historical context and the religious aspect is not edited out by the politically correct. No problem. If you can see that, what is so imperative about stepping off the stage and leading the children in prayer to drive home the history lesson?
My friend is not a lawyer, but he is a good civic minded citizen who happens to be an informed, concerned Christian. Like me, not a whacko. I'll simply ignore your last two questions. They fall into the category addressed above. }: (
Frank, you can't put blinders on at this point. The essence of first amendment establishment clause jurisprudence and confusion rests on answers to those two questions. Indeed, I ask you repeatedly questions related to the question "why." Don't take the easy way out on me after all this.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment