Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 15:15:28 0600
From: Frank Grose
To: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Today's updates.
It also says he is reported to have "mocked" the prayer groups in the past. Not to be facetious, but that's just another example of "kids will be kids," eh? And unlike what happened in Pike County, it is doubtful that in Kentucky, the school administrators fostered an atmosphere where taunting of Christians by atheists was tolerated.
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 harassing? 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.
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).
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.
FWIW, don't know if you've been following what's happening in Bon Secour, with the school stopping the nativity scene in the Christmas pageant out of fear of Judge DeMent's order, but I'm not convinced that legally they have to. The Lynch v. Donnelly decision I sent you is going to come into play here in the analysis, and I don't think the lawyers advising the school board are familiar with it. As you've seen, this is complicated jurisprudence here, and each case is pretty fact intensive.
I've got to confess, I usually scan the paper very quickly for topics of interest. When I use the term "paper," I use it rather loosely and am referring to the Courier. I haven't been aware of the situation in Bon Secour.
I can tell you that as a child I was quite uncomfortable singing Christmas Carols like "Silent Night." But they are such beautiful songs musically that while occasionally I would just mumble the words, for the most part, I sang along with the best of my voice. I can convince myself that it's OK, that it's pretty, "seasonal," music, that I don't have to believe in what I'm singing. Similarly, I could probably convince myself that the nativity scene in the school play is just a historical and literary device that demonstrates the origin of the holiday, as with the Pilgrims at Thanksgiving. Even still, as an aside to the aside, growing up in a community where the kids learned at home and in church that the Jews killed Jesus, did give me considerable pause about the idea of what message I was delivering by singing his praises.
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. The main reason is for you to hear for yourself how a real Christian feels and teaches other Christians to regard the Jews and Israel. As my horizons have been broadened under your patient (most of the time) tutelage, I belief these tapes would help you in your concept of what Christians believe (or should believe), specifically with regard to the Jews and the nation of Israel. At least you will understand the context of the proper Christian use of the phrase "chosen people." The second reason is for you to bring into better focus which "Christians" it was who was persecuting the Jews, and what specific incorrect theology leads to anti-Semitism (which is/has been very real, and a natural reaction to improper theology). After listening to these tapes, I better understand the context of the Jews' "fear" of Christians. Thirdly, this knowledge will better equip you to challenge other Christians in what they believe. Think of that, a non observant Jew teaching the Bible to a Christian! ; ) If you will listen to them, I'll copy them and send them to you. I want you to just listen to them first (without immediately labeling Chuck), then we can discuss points where he is wrong or don't go far enough on. Such a discussion is a must for our book. 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.
Interestingly, in Bon Secour, no one has actually challenged the nativity scene, and I haven't heard what the "left's" take on it is. If it is challenged, Bon Secour will lose most likely, if only because the parents are absolutely adamant that the scene is there because it represents the birth of "the Lord" and it wouldn't be Christmas without it. If they softened their approach and said it was just a historical and literary representation of the origins of the holiday, it would stand a considerable better chance of surviving.
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.
Regards,
Frank
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment