Sunday School v. 2.0: Now 6 Days a Week!
I'm back from vacation a little earlier than planned, and I found this letter in the paper on the ride home. My wife says I'm not allowed to read the paper on vacation anymore.
I've grappled with this subject before, but this particular letter set me off in fifty different directions. It's not a well-developed argument, to be sure, but the hubris involved in this type of statement makes me see red.
First of all, right off the bat, Ronald Reagan was not a constitutional scholar, Amanda. He was, if one cares to recall, an actor. That's not to say that his opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant; we did elect the man president twice. Likewise, however, there is no reason to hold Reagan up as the end-all and be-all of constitutional interpretation. As head of the executive branch, he was responsible for the enforcement, not interpretation, of law. This quote doesn't 'explain' anything other than Reagan's views on a long-established legal precedent. You can agree with him if you want to, but his opinion shouldn't be the basis for yours. Ronald Reagan had a love of jelly beans, as do I, but I'd hardly consider him an expert in candy making.
As to the actual content of the quote, it's not really applicable to your argument. Reagan was mostly pandering to a religious crowd and his religious base... while I don't suggest that Reagan's religious convictions were a scam, his actual policies did not reflect this level of fervor. He is also speaking specifically about moral values and policy making, not religious tenets and educational standards. The former is a much safer argument, frankly. Very few people can make an argument against traditional moral values having some role in legislation, as laws in a democracy reflect the aggregate of moral values within society. Sobriety, chastity, honesty, charity, and respect of property are all traditional moral values, and all are reflected to some degree within the law. America does not keep traditional moral values away from policy making. Of course, the laws are not designed to reflect the morals of any one person or set of beliefs, and while this is the basis of democracy, it is a source of consternation for many evangelical Christians who claim to be patriotic Americans, but in reality would like to see our democracy replaced with a theology, with laws based not on the cultural aggregate but instead on their very specific set of values. These are the people whose votes Reagan was garnering with the ultimately ambiguous passage you quoted.
As to the second half of the quote, well, it's a baseless claim that is overused by people who really, really want to believe that it is some sort of universal truth and not simply one possible view of constitutional interpretation. The truth is, this was a topic of fierce debate not only fifty years ago, but a full two hundred and twenty years ago. The argument Reagan makes, and that you make through Reagan, is the argument made by James Madison: that religion should be protected from the government, but that the government needed no protection from religion. Certainly Madison's was an important voice in the conception of American democracy, but it was certainly not the only, or even the loudest, voice. Jefferson disagreed fervently with Madison on this matter, as with most others, and argued that religion is poisonous to government and needed to be reigned in. Ultimately, no reference to religion was made in the constitution itself, and a compromise was reached for the bill of rights in the form of the rather ambiguous first amendment. That compromise was furthered early in the work of the Supreme Court, with a precedent for a separation of church and state, a move intended to protect each from the other.
Regardless of how you feel about it, the precedent was set. You may not like it, but it's foolish to argue that you're making an argument of original intent, or calling for a return to the 'good old days.' Remember that the founders of American Democracy were products of the Age of Enlightenment, and if you think that as a fervent Christian you experience intellectual prejudice now, you don't realize how easy you have it. There is no constant slide from conservatism to liberalism in American history. People who want a return to the 'good old days' generally mean the fifties; they do not mean, for instance, the twenties. It is empty rhetoric to simply call for a return to traditional values, as those traditional values have swung back and forth many times during American history.
All of this aside, however, the notion that Christianity is subject to any form of tyranny in the United States is absolutely absurd. 81% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. We are in the vast majority. We simply cannot be marginalized in those kinds of numbers. Christians who claim that they are persecuted in the United States come of as selfish, whining, spoiled brats who see any refusal of their wishes to be some sort of unjust affront. Christians need no protection from the government, because in a democracy the government is the people, and better than four out of every five people here are Christians. Christians, for the most part, are the government. What evangelical Christians have a difficult time understanding is that most Christians have no desire to live under a Christian theocracy. The problem is not that Christianity is under attack... it remains firmly rooted as the most influential belief system in the nation. Ignorance is under attack, and thankfully so; if these evangelical Christians wish to no longer be under attack, they can stop pursuing goals that embrace intolerance, hubris, and self-righteous arrogance, values that are not only unnecessary for following the Christian faith, but are actually discouraged by it.
Your final statement is absolutely correct, Amanda, though I don't think you meant it quite that way.
Exactly, Amanda. The separation of church and state is meant to keep the government out of making our religious decisions for us. Not us Christians, Amanda, but us Americans. By allowing the introduction of religious tenets and practices in the schools, you are taking that right away from the 19% of the population that is not Christian, as well as the large number of Christians who believe that religious instruction should not be a public matter. And which version of Christianity should be introduced to schools, Amanda? Would evangelicals be happy if their children received a catholic education? Would Calvinist denominations be okay with being taught a Lutheran doctrine of non-predetermination? Who would decide these things? And what would happen if the instructor isn't Christian? Would you be comfortable with your child being encouraged to read the Quran, or to reflect on past incarnations, or to cast a circle of protection on themselves? Somehow, I doubt it. I bet you'd consider that religious tyranny. Odd, then, that you can't see that forcing others into an environment where only your beliefs are respected is just as tyrannical. We do have the right to choose what faith we practice on a daily basis, but that right is taken away from children whose faith is discredited and supplanted as part of their public education.
To the Editor:
For five decades now, religion and its integration into schools has been an ongoing discussion and issue in the United States government and many courts of law. Education now extends beyond the simple teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic.
The First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" should not be a reason to keep religion out of schools.
As stated by Ronald Reagan in Dallas on Aug. 22, 1980, in his speech to a religious group, "When I hear the First Amendment used as reason to keep traditional moral values away from policy making, I am shocked. The First Amendment was written not to protect the people and their laws from religious values, but to protect those values from greater tyranny." This quote explains that the separation of state and church is meant to keep the government out of making our religious decisions for us, therefore giving us religious freedom and the right to choose what faith we practice on a daily basis.
Amanda
I've grappled with this subject before, but this particular letter set me off in fifty different directions. It's not a well-developed argument, to be sure, but the hubris involved in this type of statement makes me see red.
First of all, right off the bat, Ronald Reagan was not a constitutional scholar, Amanda. He was, if one cares to recall, an actor. That's not to say that his opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant; we did elect the man president twice. Likewise, however, there is no reason to hold Reagan up as the end-all and be-all of constitutional interpretation. As head of the executive branch, he was responsible for the enforcement, not interpretation, of law. This quote doesn't 'explain' anything other than Reagan's views on a long-established legal precedent. You can agree with him if you want to, but his opinion shouldn't be the basis for yours. Ronald Reagan had a love of jelly beans, as do I, but I'd hardly consider him an expert in candy making.
As to the actual content of the quote, it's not really applicable to your argument. Reagan was mostly pandering to a religious crowd and his religious base... while I don't suggest that Reagan's religious convictions were a scam, his actual policies did not reflect this level of fervor. He is also speaking specifically about moral values and policy making, not religious tenets and educational standards. The former is a much safer argument, frankly. Very few people can make an argument against traditional moral values having some role in legislation, as laws in a democracy reflect the aggregate of moral values within society. Sobriety, chastity, honesty, charity, and respect of property are all traditional moral values, and all are reflected to some degree within the law. America does not keep traditional moral values away from policy making. Of course, the laws are not designed to reflect the morals of any one person or set of beliefs, and while this is the basis of democracy, it is a source of consternation for many evangelical Christians who claim to be patriotic Americans, but in reality would like to see our democracy replaced with a theology, with laws based not on the cultural aggregate but instead on their very specific set of values. These are the people whose votes Reagan was garnering with the ultimately ambiguous passage you quoted.
As to the second half of the quote, well, it's a baseless claim that is overused by people who really, really want to believe that it is some sort of universal truth and not simply one possible view of constitutional interpretation. The truth is, this was a topic of fierce debate not only fifty years ago, but a full two hundred and twenty years ago. The argument Reagan makes, and that you make through Reagan, is the argument made by James Madison: that religion should be protected from the government, but that the government needed no protection from religion. Certainly Madison's was an important voice in the conception of American democracy, but it was certainly not the only, or even the loudest, voice. Jefferson disagreed fervently with Madison on this matter, as with most others, and argued that religion is poisonous to government and needed to be reigned in. Ultimately, no reference to religion was made in the constitution itself, and a compromise was reached for the bill of rights in the form of the rather ambiguous first amendment. That compromise was furthered early in the work of the Supreme Court, with a precedent for a separation of church and state, a move intended to protect each from the other.
Regardless of how you feel about it, the precedent was set. You may not like it, but it's foolish to argue that you're making an argument of original intent, or calling for a return to the 'good old days.' Remember that the founders of American Democracy were products of the Age of Enlightenment, and if you think that as a fervent Christian you experience intellectual prejudice now, you don't realize how easy you have it. There is no constant slide from conservatism to liberalism in American history. People who want a return to the 'good old days' generally mean the fifties; they do not mean, for instance, the twenties. It is empty rhetoric to simply call for a return to traditional values, as those traditional values have swung back and forth many times during American history.
All of this aside, however, the notion that Christianity is subject to any form of tyranny in the United States is absolutely absurd. 81% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. We are in the vast majority. We simply cannot be marginalized in those kinds of numbers. Christians who claim that they are persecuted in the United States come of as selfish, whining, spoiled brats who see any refusal of their wishes to be some sort of unjust affront. Christians need no protection from the government, because in a democracy the government is the people, and better than four out of every five people here are Christians. Christians, for the most part, are the government. What evangelical Christians have a difficult time understanding is that most Christians have no desire to live under a Christian theocracy. The problem is not that Christianity is under attack... it remains firmly rooted as the most influential belief system in the nation. Ignorance is under attack, and thankfully so; if these evangelical Christians wish to no longer be under attack, they can stop pursuing goals that embrace intolerance, hubris, and self-righteous arrogance, values that are not only unnecessary for following the Christian faith, but are actually discouraged by it.
Your final statement is absolutely correct, Amanda, though I don't think you meant it quite that way.
"...the separation of state and church is meant to keep the government out of making our religious decisions for us, therefore giving us religious freedom and the right to choose what faith we practice on a daily basis."
Exactly, Amanda. The separation of church and state is meant to keep the government out of making our religious decisions for us. Not us Christians, Amanda, but us Americans. By allowing the introduction of religious tenets and practices in the schools, you are taking that right away from the 19% of the population that is not Christian, as well as the large number of Christians who believe that religious instruction should not be a public matter. And which version of Christianity should be introduced to schools, Amanda? Would evangelicals be happy if their children received a catholic education? Would Calvinist denominations be okay with being taught a Lutheran doctrine of non-predetermination? Who would decide these things? And what would happen if the instructor isn't Christian? Would you be comfortable with your child being encouraged to read the Quran, or to reflect on past incarnations, or to cast a circle of protection on themselves? Somehow, I doubt it. I bet you'd consider that religious tyranny. Odd, then, that you can't see that forcing others into an environment where only your beliefs are respected is just as tyrannical. We do have the right to choose what faith we practice on a daily basis, but that right is taken away from children whose faith is discredited and supplanted as part of their public education.
posted by Zafrod at 12:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home