Over the past several years, I’ve noticed an alarming number of endlessly-circulating emails that I essentially see as a form of “hate mail.“ They’re intolerant, belligerent and highly-judgmental, and to make matters worse, they’re very short on real facts. Those facts that the senders do manage to get right are often taken entirely out of context and twisted around to serve their purposes. But the most alarming thing of all is that they’re circulated by people who consider themselves Christians.I’m talking about the emails dealing with removal of prayer from school, removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, and a number of other things these senders see as an affront to their faith. These emails tend to blend a rather militant patriotism and nationalism with Christianity, and in the end it’s their Christian faith that ends up being corrupted. While I think we should all defend our faith, we should never compromise the basic tenets of our faith to do so. Christ’s commandments to us to love one another, not to judge, to show mercy, to forgive and to consider the needs of others at all times is clearly lost on the originators of these emails as well as the people who proudly forward them to all their friends. It’s hard to refrain from getting annoyed when I read these emails because they're based upon uninformed worldviews and twisted truths, not fairly-considered or concrete ones. As a Christian, I lament the decline of our faith and its ability to publicly guide the lives of the American people and their leaders. But these emails do nothing to further the message of Christ, and often serve to alienate the very people we, as Christians, should be reaching out to. The best way to defend your faith is with solid witness, by living as Christ told us to, not by proudly throwing a misguided roundhouse punch into cyberspace, as many of these emails do.
I happen to think the 10 Commandments provide us with excellent and objective guidelines for living and I personally honor them as the moral guideposts in my life, but I still don't feel anyone has a right to force Judeo-Christian values on people of other faiths simply because Christianity is the majority religion in this country. That was never the intention of the Founding Fathers in spite of the fact that they were overwhelmingly Christian. We're not a theocracy, never have been one, and I sure don't want to become one because nothing in this world is more volatile and corrupting than mixing politics with religion. Show me one single example of where it has ever worked and not been an oppressive force.
Every past theocracy, even Christian ones, have been horribly oppressive and violent towards those who don't adhere to their views. Remember the Middle Ages and the Inquisitions? Remember the Crusades, when Christians marched toward the Holy Land, murdering Jews and even other Christians along the way, and did so in the name of God? Remember the churches of Europe hanging, burning and beheading "heretics," Christians whose doctrinal views were far less varied than some that exist today within this very country? That's what happens with theocracies. Once a governing body starts believing that God supports their actions, anything goes.
You say that can't happen here? Then just take a look at some statements made by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two men who have made it quite clear that they want to establish a specifically "Christian" government in spite of the fact that the Founding Fathers created a constitution that clearly would not allow it. Normally I'd take their comments with a grain of salt, but then I read Robertson's quote stating "I'm supposed to be nice to Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." If Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity is the basis for governing this country, then how am I supposed to feel when my church is attacked as being the "spirit of the Antichrist?" Who gets to decide whose "version" of Christianity holds sway over the others? With all due respect, I sure don't want Pat Robertson making that decision. And what about people of other faiths? It appears as though they'd be looking at far worse treatment.
If for some reason the notion of a Christian theocracy is okay with you, think about this reverse scenario: If somehow Islam became the majority religion in the next twenty years, would you want Sharia law forced upon you by our governing bodies? Would you want to see your kids kneeling toward Mecca three times a day in school, even though your kids are Christian (or worse, ostracized and punished for choosing not to)? Would you want to see Christian symbolism banned from the public square in favor of Islamic symbols? Of course not, and you'd have every right to fight it based upon the Constitution's 1st Amendment. It's vitally important to understand that the amendment doesn't say that we can't bring religion into the public square, it simply says that the government is bound not to favor one over another, a caveat that should effectively prevent our government from getting in bed with one particular religion at the expense of others. That's the most critical point, the most misunderstood part of it.
Here's what you need to consider... the very Amendment that protects you from ever being subject to Sharia law also protects other citizens from being subject to any specific Christian interpretations of the law. It's a double-edged sword because it protects everyone, and favors no one, a point that many ultra-right-wing American Christians don't seem to understand (or want to understand). By demanding more government support for their faith at the expense of others, they’re violating one of the founding principles of this great nation... that any person from any land could come here and find opportunity, freedom, and the right to practice their faith of choice without government interference. I would like to add that they should also be able to do so without being denied that right by American Christians, many whose faith has been corrupted by blending it with fervent nationalism, an incompatible mix at best.
That the Founding Fathers were largely Christian is beyond dispute, and while the United States was a nation comprised largely of Christians, the founders did not set out to build a "Christian nation" specifically, and in fact went out of their way to avoid a theocracy by creating a constitution that would allow religious freedom for anyone of any belief, even if they chose to be a heathen. Because of persecution in theocratic England and other parts of Europe, where Christians in power held sway over other Christians and often persecuted them to the point of death, the Founding Fathers wanted to create a government that allowed all to follow their beliefs without any opposition created by government, without a government that favored one faith over another. It was a grand and noble idea, but for it to work, it had to treat all religions with the same respect. It had to be universal.
As Thomas Jefferson (a deist, but definitely not a Christian) noted in his autobiography:
“The bill for establishing religious freedom was finally passed...and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal...and was meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection, the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.” In other words, a country that accepted anyone of any faith, or no faith at all, a country that would never create laws favoring one faith over another.
As Christians who believed every person had the right to choose their faith, the founders did, in fact, create a "wall of separation" (Jefferson's exact words, by the way) that prohibited the Government from favoring any one religion over another. All were free to worship any way they pleased, and should never be prohibited from doing so. A lot of the conflict surrounding this issue today comes from secular groups like the ACLU, which targets Christianity while appearing to protect the rights of non-Christian faith traditions. The ACLU has mangled the spirit of the Constitution, which promises "freedom of religion." The ACLU seems to think it said "freedom from religion, especially Christianity" and appears determined to "protect" everyone from being exposed to Christianity in the public square. If you have a problem with prayer being removed from school for those who wish to participate, then by all means stand up for it, and while you're at it, fight to allow anyone of any faith to pray in school as well. Are you willing to do that? I would hope so, because that's exactly what the Constitution calls for. If you're not willing to do that, then all this griping about removing school prayer and the 10 Commandments from the public arena starts looking like so much hot air. Now you're starting to see the problems that arise when we stir up our American nationalism with Christ's calling. Overall, the two positions are not very compatible. Either you fight for everyone's freedom of religion, or you're part of the reason the ACLU got involved in this issue. One of the reasons the ACLU got involved was precisely because many Christians wanted their faith to remain in schools at the exclusion of others.
I personally feel that the ACLU’s demand that we remove all prayer from the school is overstepping their bounds, but only wrong as long as we honor the Constitution by allowing any one of any faith to pray according to their faith. What does it hurt, as long as everyone has the same rights and anyone can opt out? I think the ACLU is going overboard to prevent people from having any exposure to faith, which is clearly not what the Constitution calls for. But to demand that we allow Christian prayer in school at the exclusion of other faiths is also wrong, and clearly violates the expressed purpose of the 1st Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The 1st Amendment is truly a double-edged sword, which most people don't want to deal with. While we should have the right to exercise our religious freedom anywhere at any time, we must also respect the rights of others to do the same even if it's a faith we don' t agree with, since the Amendment so clearly states that Congress can make no law that favors one religion over another. Sadly, many people who call themselves Christians don't seem willing to accept that...it's "Christianity only" for them, a very clear violation of the 1st Amendment, and a very un-Christian act as well. Christ never, ever, demanded that anyone accept Him. All were free to choose. Our job as His followers is simply to share the Good News, and share it with unconditional love. That's the power of our witness. Christianity was never meant as a means to hold "worldly" power over anyone or anything. We are told to humbly exist within whatever power structure is in place, "to be in the world, but not of it." We are to build a spiritual kingdom within our hearts, not try to control and reshape worldly ones (which, by nature, will inevitably lead to our corruption).
It should be noted that at the time it was established, the USA was largely a nation of Christians, and other religions fell into a very small minority. Christian prayer in schools was a no-brainer then, but it's far more complicated now in our pluralistic society. Things have changed considerably and while I personally see no problem with school prayer, I don't think we have a right to insist that it be "Christian prayer only" in spite of the fact that I'm a Christian. If you're going to honor the specific demands of the Constitution, then what's wrong with allowing personal prayers in school for anyone of any faith, and show no favoritism for any particular one, even if Christianity is the majority faith? And if some don't wish to participate, then that should be honored and respected as well. It should be noted that all "Christian specific" language was intentionally removed from the Constitution after much consideration, and that the God they mentioned was meant in a more universal sense, an acknowledged Creator, but not necessarily the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I do believe in the broader concept of "one nation, under God," even if that means accepting that my neighbor's God isn't the same as my own. I also believe that if people wish to get school prayer back into the schools, and insist that Judeo-Christian symbolisim such as the Ten Commandments be placed upon government property, then they must be willing to allow any other faith tradition to exist alongside ours and do exactly the same. If we're not willing to allow that, then we're suppressing minority faiths and we're not honoring the Constitution. See what I mean about the conflicts between faith and nationalism? The truth is, my commitment to God is an absolute that far exceeds my commitment to my country because there are so few areas where I find any true compatibility. In the end, I think all the arguments about school prayer and removing religious symbolism from the public square are just much ado about nothing, and here's why...
Ultimately, this is the real truth, and it's all I need to know.... I live in a free country that respects all faiths, even those I don't agree with. The laws of this country allow any of us to personally worship Christ—or Allah, or Buddha, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster—anywhere we please, in any public place, at any time, without anyone telling us not to. We can do this personally without restriction of any kind. We may not be able use these public places to lead others in organized group prayer, but no one can infringe upon our right to personally pray and honor our God at any time, anywhere, and in any manner we choose. This is the freedom we should value, because I am completely free to do this, and so are you.
Furthermore, I often wonder why American Christians even feel such an overwhelming need to put their faith on public display. Christ never exhorts us to make public displays of piety, and in fact discourages us from doing so in Matthew 6:5-6. "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly."
When someone from the government starts telling me I can’t pray anymore, or have to worship some god not of my choosing, then they’ll have a real battle on their hands. As long as I still have that right, and as long as my neighbor, be they Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu or whatever, has the same right, then all is well in these United States, at least with regards to the practice of faith. When we deny them that right while promoting our own, we not only deny a basic right granted by the Constitution, but we behave in a manner that shames our faith in Christ as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment