Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 16:36:25 0600
From: Frank Grose
To: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: School
You wrote:
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.
I understand your reluctance or inability to speak for the Jewish community. But I do value your insights into Jewish related topics.
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."
I'm trying to look at things without the filters and blinders, but it is hard when it is so "in your face" and overkill. It is hard to find a pony in the pile, if you know what I mean.
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.
Perhaps you are right. I've alluded to the "diversity" among "Christians" previously. (I am no longer a member of Christian Coalition, for what its worth.) Also, I don't see this as a Jewish inspired effort. Since you are Jewish and use examples of potential harm that seem related to Jews, I usually couch my comments in those terms. BTW, if you've never read Pat Robertson's book "New World Order" you might ought to give it a read. A rather interesting and provocative perspective!
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 be one small sect of Christianity).
Fair enough!
“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.
Okay, I'll try. But try to not feel put down in some way next time you are in someone's presence who prays a prayer in Jesus' name. See, it is difficult for both of us. Your admonishment to stay focused is universally applicable. It will build our sense of teamwork, as we struggle for "the truth" and solutions for our society.
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.“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.”
Yes, I see that is drawing a fine line. And I can see where if she said that, it would be difficult for a Jewish child in the class. Then would it be okay if she had said, "Okay, I'll ask God to bless our food?" Then bowed her head and done so in the name of Jesus (as is her religious custom)? No coercion; no leading?
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.
I see what you are saying. But then you are subscribing the all or nothing mind set that you derided in times past. Isn't that intolerance from those who preach tolerance? You must understand that while you are close to such issues and court decisions, the average citizen and teacher are not. They are just trying to make a living in a world of ever increasing government imposed, court imposed "mine field." You've got to understand that.
“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.
I was afraid you'd say something like that. It seems that the word/term that we keep misunderstanding is "promote." Let's try to come to a common understanding on that one, otherwise well never get out book completed. You first. Tell me the definition of "promote" as in promotion of religion. Give me Rob the man's definition. I can't get that from court decisions.
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.
We agree on your last statement. I really mean that. I agree. In this instance, it was what the kid learned in church and at home that emerged in the classroom. And it was in that setting that his religious training met government prohibition. (I'm granting here that the teacher was acting in her official capacity as a government representative (not that I really accept that position as true.))
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.
Wow! Musta touched a hot button! Surely you are not telling me that court decisions (okay interpretations) don't make law?
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.
You are right! But, then he'll be labeled a "right wing, fundamentalist, Christian whacko" when he grows up. ; ) Pity the dumb peons! One might get the feeling that you have little tolerance for "superficial people who understand neither the law, nor their Bible." Be careful. Such feelings, if left unchecked, can lead to... well, you know where I'm going with this familiar line. You aren't gonna come after me now, are you? Remember, you are not a threat to me.
(Are we still enjoying this dialog? Are we making progress?)
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.
My use of the term (and I didn't know is was a catch phrase, thanks) did mean praying and thanking God for his provision. But it also included simple public acknowledgment of God, without any prayer being associated. It just seems that any public mention of "God" is subject to a legal attack.
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.
As far as government promoting religion, count me in with you. It is just that we haven't zeroed in on the definition of promotion yet. You know, (Oh how I hate that phrase, "You know?" One of my personal goals is to stop using it in conversation.) I really think we agree with each other on far more that we disagree. But I think we both enjoy the dialog about how we differ. I do, and it is instructive. I'm certain that while we are on the book tour, we'll get even closer to agreement.
“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.
Yes, it does still color my analysis, because I've not studied the issues in Gitlow v. New York enough to fully appreciate the legal points that you're making. Without that information (which most of the "right" don't have), it surely does look like a turning point around then. Can you see that?
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.
Back to the "promote" (a.k.a. foist) problem again. We've got to come to an understanding of this!
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.
Actually, I thought I was agreeing with you! I don't want to see the deprivation of freedom nor persecution on the basis of religion any more than you do, my friend. I'm glad that we have the First Amendment protections, even though I may disagree with the contemporary court decisions. I do recognize them as law, however, but I am free to express my displeasure in the law.
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.
Rob, I understand your concern here, really. I wouldn't want a repetition of that to anyone's kids. But, even though you may not like to hear it, I hardly think children are going to be cognizant nor observant of laws preventing them from kidding one another (as mean as it is). But in saying that, be assured I'm not endorsing laxness on the part of teachers and administrators either. I just think it is the nature of kids to harass each other with any handle they can find.
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.
No blinders, no attempt to dodge. I wasn't there, but I suspect the object was to teach a history lesson. No, I don't believe it was a subterfuge to promote religion. The prayer suggestion was brought up by a kid. I am not accusing you of deliberately reading far more into this than existed, but I do think you are stretching the point to even ask such questions. You are suggesting more than is there. I think I'm hearing Rob the lawyer talking a lot more than Rob the man. You are too suspicious, and examining every detail with a microscope trying to find some legal problem with it. Can that de minimus concept apply to Christians occasionally too? It would help in our efforts if you would "walk a mile in my shoes" or "feel my part of the elephant" once in awhile. That don't seem evident in your discussion of this topic. Don't tell me we've lost ground in that area.
Regards,
Frank
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment