Date: Wed Dec 03 17:20:16 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Today's updates.
At 03:15 PM 12/3/97 0600, you wrote:
We've been around the "Pike County" pole a number of times already. Serious question here: Did the school administrators, in fact, actively encourage, allow, or condone the practice of those kid who were doing the harrassing? Were they just passive and "looked the other way?" Without attempting to defend them at all, I just want to examine your assertions here. I have a hard time rationalizing a situation where a teacher or principal would not try to put a stop to harassment in general, much less for one's religious beliefs. If they really did actively condone or passively allow it to continue, I am firmly in your camp.
We're talking about Pike County? I'd say the whole "benign neglect" atmosphere created a situation of "actively condoning" it. I don't think they "encouraged" it by any means, just that the variety of things added up to give the other children tacit permission to be more than hurtful. Had the school officials acted quickly to address some of it instead of saying "kids will be kids" (which is pretty much how they looked at it until they got sued) it'd be different.
To be fair to you while we're speculating, I'd not be too surprised if the administrators in Kentucky didn't look the other way if they were in fact aware the prayer group was indeed being mocked. We don't know how much who knew. Assuming they did, there may have been concern that if they intervened they'd have been considered promoting and participating in the prayer group which would be verboten. Even still, it would not be exactly the same thing as creating an atmosphere (as is alleged in Pike County) where the administration's benign neglect dismissed painting swastikas on the kids' lockers as just "kids will be kids." The point is, that if it IS true, perhaps we can empathize with the other minorities a little better, and most importantly ask ourselves where do we go from here.
You and I would agree generally that kids should be able to express themselves and their religion. That's the "free exercise" part of the first amendment which is a separate clause for legal analysis from the "establishment" clause. Exercise is what the kids do, establishment is what the school/government isn't supposed to do. Our dialog has focused exclusively on the establishment issues. What we'll see in the cases to come is the courts grappling with the accommodation of free exercise rights in the "no establishment" setting.
“Don't you think that whoever is doing the mocking, whether atheists of Christians in Kentucky or Christians of Jews in Pike County, ‘kids will be kids’ is simply not an answer? That it is something that needs to be addressed?”
I think you must have read far more into my initial and subsequent use of the "kids will be kids" phrase than I ever intended. I have never offered that as an excuse for bad behavior. I don't condone that sort of thing. I never put up with it (if I knew of it) from my children. I use the term as a fact of basic human behavior. "The sky is blue." is a similar factual statement (except it is very gray and drippy right now).
I wasn't directing that at you. I was just addressing that argument generally, since we both see it, trying actually to pull the debate away from you/me us/them left/right stuff that got me so riled last night. I'm suggesting that when you hear it, you might want to challenge it as well. Trying to look at the broader picture, regardless of who is saying it.
“If you're prepared to claim credit for predicting correctly that bloodshed would come, the evidence I presume you'd point to would be that "mocking" the Christians was a sign. Does logic not also suggest that mocking of any group for their beliefs or because they're different will ultimately have similar consequences? That is what must be addressed. It doesn't matter who draws first blood, someone has to be the first to offer to turn their swords into plowshares.”
Yes, the logic is solid. Looking at this as an isolated incident, I wouldn't readily attribute this as a "sign," but on a broader view, it probably will be a data point on the trend line. Of course, that is gut feel. I really haven't had the time to read much of the story.
Truth is, I can't deny, on the broader scale you're at least partially right on the "data point" idea. This aberrant blip is clearly evidence of SOMETHING, including a failure of parents/schools/churches, whatever. What my email to you last night revealed to me in reflection is that if we're going to come to some agreements we have to agree first that there will not be ONE answer, but that we should look for multiple solutions to address the symptoms of what I am convinced is more than one disease. It is simply not as easy as saying "moral decline" of the nation attributable to, for example, trends of the Supreme Court in the sixties. People are prone to look for easy answers. There are too many other contributing factors that we need to take into consideration before jumping to any hasty conclusions, left or right.
Rob, I have a two cassette tape series by Chuck Missler called "The Prodigal Heirs." He really gets pretty deep into the history and status of the Jews and the nation of Israel. I'd like for you to listen to it for a number of reasons.
OK, I'll listen. Now, I've made no pre-judgments about Missler. I hadn't listened to his other stuff yet because that's been on the religion side of our discussion and I had other reading to do in that area before we could talk. But a Christian talking to Christians about what they ought to be believing with respect to the Jews is something I think I could get into. Because on that subject I already have somewhat of a frame of reference, so hearing it from an intelligent articulate "non agenda" fellow like Missler, I would give it the credit it's due.
You should be aware that he is a Christian teaching Christians, so you will hear references like to "the Messiah" that is typical for Christian teaching. Being an intellectual and comfortable in your belief, you can take those parts in proper perspective.
No problem. He's teaching Christians, not proselytizing to Jews.
Yep, a softer approach should have been taken in the first place, but it is important to a Christian (in a way you may not be able to appreciate) to agree that it is "JUST a historical and literary representation." Doing that would be, in effect, of denying your belief. It makes perfect sense to most Christians. The point is to try to understand that one has to deal with folks who don't necessarily share your beliefs, and to make it as palatable and non offensive or non-controversial for them as possible.
I think I really am beginning to understand and appreciate, thanks to many of our discussions. Which makes grappling with the issue difficult as I look for solutions, because understanding where they're coming from I'm not boxing them in with labels. A lot of my focus with you has been to persuade you that my politics are not "anti-Christian," that I do in fact respect your sincerely held religious beliefs, that my views of the constitution are not antithetical to your views of your relationship with God. If I can get through to you, maybe you and I can get through to the rest of the "right." And that street definitely goes two ways. As you get through to me, and you do, I take the message to the "left." Interestingly, when I put your objections to the "homosexual promotion" in algebraic terms, a light went on. So, while we didn't mean to go off on that tangent, it was actually quite helpful in finding a way to understand your beliefs without labeling you a "whacko." I've been trying to apply that formula to some of the other issues we've been dealing with. Sometimes I see it, sometimes I'm not sure.
This ain't easy stuff, but we knew that going in. Take care. -R
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment