GOD BLESS YOU, MR. VONNEGUT: God, Kurt Vonnegut and the hereafter

I knew he was getting older, and I knew he wasn’t long for this earth. The last time I saw a photo of Kurt Vonnegut—I think it was just last year—I was shocked. He looked old and worn out, like he was ready and willing to go. I saw the face of a tired and resigned old man, and the photo didn’t do him justice. But then it occurred to me that maybe he wanted it to look that way because that’s the way he felt.

I’d been reading KV ever since the early 1970s, when my cousin Cary first handed me a copy of “God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater,” and I quickly became a fan for life. I’ve never been entirely sure what it was about his writing that so captured my attention, but I sensed a kindred spirit with a skewed perception of the crazy world we live in, and knew I’d found a writer that I would follow almost anywhere, even to places where other writers wouldn’t think, much less dare, to go. I felt a sense of whimsy when I read his books, yet there was something about his whimsical prose that allowed you to realize that he viewed life as a deadly serious affair, although one that you couldn’t take too seriously if you were going to survive for long. Did that statement even make sense? It did in Vonnegut’s world. He viewed the business of life as a conundrum we all have to deal with while we’re here, so we might as well make the best of it. But what touches my heart the most, at a point in my life now thirty-some odd years removed from my first introduction to KV, is the fact that this whimsical, self-described religious skeptic had a sweet spot for Christ and what he stood for, describing Him as "...that greatest and most humane of human beings."

The most powerful recurring theme in the bulk of Vonnegut’s writing is his constant asking of the question, “Why can’t we all just treat each other with a little common decency?” He never said it had to be love, and even once wrote that he cringed when someone said they loved him because he felt like they’d put a gun to his head and demanded the same response in return. He simply wished, with all his heart, that we’d treat each other better, even if it was only just a little bit better.

Quite a bit was written about him in the week following his death, but one thing that really caught my attention was this piece of writing that originally appeared online in 2004 under the rather broad title “Addicted to Oil and Violence.” In this sprawling piece, Vonnegut is at his cranky, compassionate best, and not at all like the writer who penned his later novels, where he appeared to be writing entirely for his own entertainment, or perhaps to fulfill a book contract. The broad scope of the piece was, of course, about oil and violence, but in typical KV fashion, he took us on a ride through his own thoughts first, entertaining us, teaching us and getting us greased up for the important stuff to follow. In this lead-up, he spoke of Americans and the state of denial we live in, how we claim to be one thing while living something else entirely. When speaking of Christ, he noted that most Christians seem to pay little attention to the teachings of Christ, teachings that are largely inconsistent with what it means to live the American lifestyle. Once again, while addressing the need for more compassion, for the need to just treat each other with a bit more common decency, he says:

"Doesn’t anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools or health insurance for all? How about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes? "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

And so on. Not exactly planks in a Republican platform. Not exactly Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney stuff.

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.

“Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break!"

But he doesn’t stop there. Upping the ante, he goes after the current administration and its ill-advised nation-building adventure into Iraq to tie up what oil is left while America continues to cap and save its own reserves so it can be the last country standing with access to oil.

"We’re spreading democracy, are we? Same way European explorers brought Christianity to the Indians, what we now call “Native Americans?” How ungrateful they were! How ungrateful are the people of Baghdad today. So let’s give another big tax cut to the super-rich. That’ll teach bin Laden a lesson he won’t soon forget. Hail to the Chief.

That chief and his cohorts have as little to do with Democracy as the Europeans had to do with Christianity. We the people have absolutely no say in whatever they choose to do next. In case you haven’t noticed, they’ve already cleaned out the treasury, passing it out to pals in the war and national security rackets, leaving your generation and the next one with a perfectly enormous debt that you’ll be asked to repay.

Nobody let out a peep when they did that to you, because they have disconnected every burglar alarm in the Constitution: The House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the FBI, the free press (which, having been embedded, has forsaken the First Amendment) and We the People.

When you arrived in this world, even when I arrived in this world, the industrialized world was already hopelessly hooked on fossil fuels, and very soon now there won’t be any more of those. Cold turkey. Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn’t like TV news, is it?

Here’s what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we’re hooked on."

Mr. Vonnegut is gone now, and I’ll miss him. He brought a unique voice to my generation and although he couldn’t bring himself to see Christ’s divinity—choosing instead to merely see Him as the most humble and most wise human being who ever lived—I pray that Mr. Vonnegut will meet his maker with humility and grace. And I trust that Mr. Vonnegut’s maker will treat this fine human being lovingly and fairly.

And so it goes...

SHOW ME THE MONEY: Capitalizing on the growth industry of Biblical revisionism

Director James Cameron, of "Terminator" and "Titanic" fame, has put his name back in the news for the first time in many years. Will his new Discovery Channel video venture — launched along with a book by Simcha Jacobovici — make him as much money and bring as much fame as his last hit, "Titanic," which grossed over a billion dollars worldwide? Well, at the very least he's created a new controversy. His claim? That he has DNA evidence to prove that a bunch of "bone boxes" found in Jerusalem twenty seven years ago came from the tomb of Jesus, his mother Mary, his "wife" Mary Magdelene, and a number of his siblings. Oh, yes...and lets not forget the bones of Jesus and Mary Magdelene's "son" Judah, who was also uncovered in the archeological dig. This, of course, would be the grandson of God if Cameron is correct. Take that, Dan Brown. James Cameron just one-upped you in a big way.

And the best part of this sensational story? It has real sects appeal!

Never mind that Bar-Ilan University Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jewish archeologist who actually oversaw the dig and has done most of the work on the project in the years since, calls Cameron's claim sheer "nonsense." Kloner has stated that the names on the ossuaries only resemble some of the names of people in Jesus' family, and as Jesus was a Galilean, there's virtually no chance whatsoever that he or any members of his family would have been buried in a middle-class family's tomb in Jerusalem.

As for the DNA evidence, what can Cameron possibly be talking about? Unless someone has some of Christ's DNA (they don't) or that of a member of his family (again, none available) how can he make such a claim? At the very least, he might be able to show that some of the people buried in the crypt are related in some way, but that's the best he could hope for under the circumstances. To make any claims beyond that is sheer speculation. For a media outlet like the Discovery Channel to start stooping to such sensationalism creates even more speculation. Have they just given up on the notion of journalistic integrity? Or are they just more interested in ratings at any cost?

In the end, money and controversy seem to be motiviating factors. It appears that Cameron and Jacobovici are simply trying to make a buck and rake some muck by playing Biblical Crypt Keepers to a gullible public that will cough up any amount of money to have their ears tickled by some slick hucksters with a sensationalistic story. Remember, this is the same pair of dudes who brought us "The Exodus Decoded" a few years back, another Discovery Channel film that claimed to explain away every major feature of the Exodus story. In light of this latest release, it appears that their previous effort at Biblical revisionism was designed to soften up their theologically-challenged audience for the big sucker punch to follow.

JESUS LOVES PORN STARS: The controversy continues for the XXX Church

Just a few weeks ago I watched a short segment on ABC's Nightline in which correspondent Martin Bashir visited a pornography convention in Las Vegas. His intent was to interview Craig Gross and J.R. Mahon, two very controversial young men who founded the XXX Church as a means to combat pornography and offer hope to any lost souls foundering within the industry. I'd read about these two men on several occasions and was shocked to learn that their ministry has been attacked repeatedly in the press, and most often by other Christians who think they've gone too far in trying to take the Gospel to the fringes of society.

Their approach is unorthodox, to be sure, and the bulk of the criticism they receive is aimed at the New Testament they distribute. They print the book's cover in bright yellow and magenta, and the cover illustration is a graphic of what appears to be a 1970s-era portrait of a male porn star, with the title emblazoned beneath: "Jesus Loves Porn Stars," which plays off the notion that Christ hates sin, but loves the sinner. But that's about as extreme as it gets, and their approach to dealing with the pornography industry, as well as trying to get people to stop viewing online porn, is simply to confront them with some practical facts. Pornography, they say, doesn't deal with real relationships. It degrades women and represents all the worst things about male fantasies in that it doesn't require a man to have a real relationship with a real woman. Without a real relationship, they say, you won't learn to respect one another and that will prevent you from creating a true and loving relationship, as God intended.

They don't spend a lot of time preaching to anyone, and their approach is very non-confrontational. They simply hand out their colorful Bibles at their events (which are extremely popular everywhere they go), talk briefly about their mission, and let people know that Christ is ready for a relationship with them whenever they're ready. From what I gathered after watching the Nightline piece, they're two very intelligent and committed young men who love God and want to share the Good News. Their doctrine is surprisingly sound, even more so than some of our so-called "Religious Leaders," men who so frequently can't seem to open their mouths on television without letting slip some terribly judgmental comment about those they don't agree with.

What's particularly interesting is that Craig Gross frequently get booked at colleges and other venues to debate the dangers of pornography with porn star Ron Jeremy, who's filmed over 1,800 porn films in his long career. Gross and Mahon haven't managed to sway Ron from his career choice, but their friendship with him is genuine, and Jeremy appears to truly respect them even though he clearly doesn't agree with their worldview. However, the simple fact that he respects their earnest approach seems to indicate that they've had an effect on him. The most telling moment in the Nightline piece came when Bashir, who had Gross and Jeremy together at the porn convention, asked Gross if he thought Ron Jeremy was going to hell for making those 1,800 porn films. It was just the sort of loaded question that media types usually ask, and yet it's a fair test of a Christian's understanding of Christ's message.

Jeremy laughed, folded his arms, and waited for a response. Gross's answer, however, surprised both Jeremy and Bashir. After a short and thoughtful pause, Gross basically replied, "Well, for starters you can disregard those 1,800 porn films, because they certainly won't keep him out of heaven. In the end, I don't know where Ron will end up because he still has choices to make down the road, choices that could lead him toward God."

It was a simple but impressive response, and a beautiful moment as well. Gross clearly understands the concept of Grace, and he also clearly understands that he has no right to judge Ron Jeremy. Why? Because he has no idea where Ron Jeremy's heart will be at his life's end. Gross understands that we're all on spiritual journeys and our futures are filled with many choices. Based upon his response, it seems pretty clear that Gross is praying for Ron Jeremy's soul and hopes that the porn star eventually makes the right choice. For that he should have the support of fellow Christians, not their scorn.

A WING AND A PRAYER: A review of our Presiding Bishop's new book

Before you're even halfway through this trim volume (a collection of homilies on a wide variety of subjects) you'll realize that the author has a firm grasp of orthodox theology as well as a broad and compassionate sense of mission for all believers. She tells of positive encounters with people of other faiths, and she comes away from the experiences with a clear sense that anyone seeking God, no matter what their path, is moving in the same direction as she is. What's particularly amazing is that she treats these people as her equals and relates these encounters without resorting to Christian triumphalism. She possesses a very clear vision of Christ's mission and works daily to live it by example.

I was particularly impressed by the way she tries to deal with anyone she doesn't understand, doesn't get along with, or doesn't agree with, no matter whether they're family, or someone of a different faith or belief system that she encounters half a world away. She reminds herself that no matter who they are, they're still a child of God, even if it's not easy for her to see that. She prays, "Oh God, let me see your image in this person, and may they see your image in me as well." It's a simple yet powerful prayer, and one that we should all take to heart.

As an Episcopalian, I'm well aware—from a number of comments made in the press over the years—that some prominent Christians have judged the Episcopal church as being too welcoming, too ecunemical and sometimes too tolerant, but that's an oversimplification of the situation, and something Schori attempts to address through the passages in this book. The Episcopal Church has broad shoulders, and she appears to believe it operates in part on the notion that it would rather be judged for being too compassionate than be judged for being too judgmental and divisive through legalistic interpretations of Scripture, such as using some of the 613 Old Testament laws to condemn others while overlooking our own inablility to follow them all. I was very pleased that at no time in this book did she ever let her message get dragged down in strict legalism, doctrinal disputes or political issues, instead choosing to focus nearly all her energies on teaching us how to become living examples of the greatest commandment, that we strive to love one another.

The new presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church reminds us that God came in the flesh for everyone, and responds to anyone who truly seeks Him. She points out that in the Book of Isaiah, God makes it abundantly clear that when the Kingdom arrives, people will come from all the world and all the nations, and the most important thing we can do on our watch is to be good ambassadors for our faith. In this wonderful little book, she lays out her vision and introduces herself to a world that's certainly in need of more like her. This book will allow you to get to know her on a personal level, and I hope and pray that she has a impactful and fruitful term as our new Presiding Bishop.

CAN A ROCK STAR CHANGE THE WORLD?: He just might, if his name is Bono

I was surprised last fall to read that when asked which public figure they saw as the best example of Christian witness, an overwhelming majority of Christian college students (both conservative and liberal) put Bono, the lead singer of the rock band U2, at the top of their list. Yet when I gave it some thought, I had to agree. In fact, over the space of the last several years, I’d come to the same conclusion on my own. He seems to be everywhere that it counts, and his approach comes closer to following Christ’s example than many so-called Christian leaders who seem too caught up in politics and inter-denominational bickering to focus on doing God’s work. I’m also not surprised that many find fault with Bono’s approach, deriding it as too ecumenical, too commercial and too secular to be considered a “true” Christian witness. I would have to disagree with this, since Christ has always used some very unlikely types to achieve great things. True, he hardly lives a blemish-free life, and by his own admission lives pretty well above the norm, yet he puts his energy behind his words, and gets a lot done in the process. But if you still have your doubts about Bono's faith, and if you'd like a better idea of where his head is about Christ and grace, read this short piece that appeared in The Nation in 2005. There's nothing watered-down about this man's faith.

I recall reading the transcript from a keynote address he gave at a National Prayer Breakfast last year. In it, he jokingly admitted to having a messianic complex and wanting to save the world. He also acknowledged he had grown up with a real aversion to organized and institutionalized religion, something he witnessed firsthand growing up in Ireland with one Catholic parent and one Protestant parent. He said he felt that religion often gets in the way of doing God’s work, and once again I have to agree with him. He spoke of how he grew up asking for God’s blessing in following his own dreams, and then learned to simply do God’s will because it was already blessed. Just look what’s happened since he figured that out. He’s now one of the most recognized figures in the world, and for many, the face they associate with leadership in the fight against disease, starvation and crushing poverty among the least fortunate of the world.

The most recent of his endeavors, and probably the most loudly criticized by some of his detractors, is his founding of the Product Red project. I’ve heard it criticized as too commercial, too crass and too entwined with the downside problems associated with free markets and globalization. Yet the money from this project, which goes into The Global Fund to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, has totalled many millions of dollars and helped many millions of people around the world. Rather than rail against the system, Bono simply decided to take the system, with all it’s faults, and turn it back on itself. Rather then sit on the sidelines and criticize, he stepped into the fray, took the bull by the horns, and used the considerable power and economic wealth of the free-market system to do a tremendous amount of good for those who can't participate in it. As he noted, people are going to shop anyway, so why not use a system that’s already in place to do some good?

Bono provides us all with a wonderful example of what you can do if you just get busy and do God’s work. It doesn’t have to be pretty and perfect, and you won’t always be able to create a “clean” and untarnished sequence of events to get the work done. But if you get to work with whatever system there is, and do God’s work, He’ll be there to see that it bears spiritual fruits.

REASON IN THE BALANCE: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education

It's nice to read the work of someone who really thinks through their position before putting it down on paper, as Philip Johnson has done with this fine book, the purpose of which is to show that basing law, education and science purely on naturalism produces very questionable results. Johnson notes that it produces societies of people who lose all notion of acting in the common good and instead turn inward and focus on creating their own personal space and prosperity to the detriment of society as a whole. Naturalism rejects the notion of any concrete moral guideposts, and therefore people who subscribe to it feel no obligation to act on anything except their own subjective and ever-changing beliefs. It's a good and fair point he makes, and even a number of atheists over the centuries have noted that mankind would probably lose all moral sense of direction without some sort of faith in their lives.

This isn't to assume that the faith community is without flaws...it certainly has its share of skeletons in the closet. But overall, naturalism and its focus on subjective laws has brought us such horrors as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung (all fervent believers in "natural" law). These men were responsible for nearly 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone and acted that way because they had no moral absolutes to follow, only their own subjective guidelines. If anyone wants to attack the injection of faith into the public psyche, they do so at the risk of ignoring the overall track record of the naturalistic world-view and its fallout, which overall is quite a bit worse off than any faith-based system in history. In the end, Mr. Johnson simply shows that the naturalistic world-view that's largely accepted by an increasingly secular world provides us with a flawed foundation for building a healthy society. Simply pointing out all the flaws with faith isn't a very convincing argument for naturalism, especially when we look at the shape our society is in today because of the increasingly secular influence of naturalism in all facets of our lives. It's important to note that this book isn't pushing for a theocratic society by any means; it's not a religious tract. It simply lays out the flaws inherent in basing an entire societal system on purely natural law, while leaving room for broad but consistent "universal" values that might benefit the common good.

Of particular interest is the section dealing with the effects of naturalism within the law and how it affects our morality. In one of the most telling and powerful passages in the entire book, Johnson states: "We are arriving at an absurd condition that might be called libertarian socialism. Everyone has a right to live exactly as he or she pleases, but if something goes wrong, some abstraction called "society" is to blame and must pay the bill for the damages. Everyone must be free to make risky choices, and everyone must be protected from unpleasant consequences by social insurance that is ultimately provided by 'the government,' which is to say nobody. In consequence, there is a moral deficit of huge and growing proportions."

And in a nutshell, that's the whole point of the book, although it also deals with naturalism in science and education. In effect, by refusing to consider the idea of God, or the existence of objective moral values, societies will instead follow subjective laws that shift and change with the times. Secular types like to point out that this is necessary to deal with changing values, but I'd submit that it's no different than confusing motion with progress. What seems to be a minor distinction is actually a category mistake of monumental proportions. Moral absolutes keep us grounded and provide the basis for a stable society. Naturalism does not allow for this, and as a result societies steeped in natural law are built on unstable foundations and it's only a matter of time before they collapse. Based upon Mr. Johnson's analysis of the situation, this country appears to be headed in that direction.

HUBRIS: A Book Review

I bought this book for my father, a staunch Republican and Bush man, and was floored to hear his response after reading it. He was in complete agreement with the authors' assessment that the Bush administration and other neo-cons took us to war on some very flimsy premises simply to extend their questionable political vision to an angry and unstable Middle East that is ill-equipped to deal with free-market democracy and Western influence. My father was a lifelong and high-ranking member of military intelligence and has followed Middle Eastern issues through military publications, books and journals since the mid-1960s. He has no illusions about what took place, and this book only confirmed it for him.

Bush and the hawks in his administration used 9/11 and the fear of terrorist attacks as a tool to justify an invasion that they'd had on their agenda since their first days in office. This isn’t conjecture, by the way... it’s a well-known fact by now. The problem arose in trying to tie Iraq and Saddam Hussein to bin Laden and his terrorist organization. The evidence was flimsy, and they knew it. In spite of the glaring lack of evidence, they forged ahead anyway, scrutinizing mounds of raw intelligence in the hope that something would rear its head and provide them with enough “scare” value to garner support for the war. They found three questionable leads, and rode them (as well as a few other notable ones) all the way into battle: the claim that Saddam was trying to import yellow-cake uranium from Niger, the purchase of aluminum tubes that were said to be used in making a nuclear reactor, and the claim that Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, had at one point made contact with an Iraqi intelligence official. All three claims turned out to be false leads, and this was known well before going to war. But the Bush administration pushed on anyway because, as noted, they’d already made up their minds. What has happened since is history, and I suspect it won’t be kind to President Bush, particularly when he seems to view the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children as “a comma” in the history of the Middle East.

The war in Iraq is a very "modern" war, at least for America...a war where the military is being used to some degree as a tool of the super-rich and super-powerful (and possibly super-arrogant, although I hate to believe that) to effect economic, political and ideological change in a region of the world where the neo-cons felt it necessary to preserve American access to resources and supply chains beneficial to American interests. It was also done as a means to establish a strong foothold in the heart of the Arab world (one conveniently located next door to Iran). To achieve these ends, they had to sell the American people on an unnecessary war by appealing to our deepest fears, rather than simply being honest with us. In their rush to arms, they overlooked sound but contrary intelligence, built their case on shaky and unsubstantiated intelligence, and saw terrorists behind every palm tree where others saw nothing at all.

What's most interesting about this book is that it's not a partisan hachet-job. A large number of the sources cited within the book were members of the administration, or friendly to it. Their current view of the war is offered in hindsight and reflection; it's honest, but a bit too late to make any difference. The book is aptly titled. If you only read a handful of books on the buildup and fallout of the Iraq war, make sure this is one of them.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND HATE: The true goal of the Founding Fathers

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.