« Apparently, the Cable Went Out and They Were Looking For Something To Pass the Time | Main | The Art of Ridicule »

01/15/2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

A Federal court rules against giving books to students at a school. I find that bizarre. I'll grant that 5th grade may be a little young for many to begin a serious theological dialogue but a person can't make a decision about religion without exploring the relevant texts. If the school district allowed the Gideons to give away Bibles but prevented others, say, the Mormons or Hare Krishnas, from giving away their sacred texts that would be wrong. The articles I read do not make that case. Apparently no other religions offered. That is not the Gideons fault. My wife, who is an elementary teacher disagrees (big surprise). From her boots on the ground perspective, she sees it as implying official sponsorship to the Gideon's program.

Allowing the distribution of Bibles might seem, at first glance, to violate the First Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of an official religion, as allowing distribution could be construed as de facto approval. However, I'd say there's a considerable distance between "allowing" and "establishing." Also, there's the issue of compulsion; no one is being forced to take a Bible. Furthermore, when one considers that Christianity, unlike all other religions, is one of the foundations of Western civilization, it is only reasonable that students be exposed to it, even if only from an academic and non-religious perspective. So in distinction to the liberal agenda of "equality" for everyone and everything, Christianity is not "equal" to other religions; in the West, it is the most important one, and should have a place of prominence, even in the public sphere. Yet we still want to preserve students' right to practice religion as they see fit.

So how to solve this seeming conundrum? I'd take it back to the 1950s, when common sense reigned and political correctness wasn't even a nightmare/wet dream yet. The 1950s was the last time America was sure of itself, that our society believed in not only its rightness but also its righteousness. Would society at large have objected to Bible distribution at a high school in 1955? I seriously doubt it.

The judge misruled.

Allowing the distribution of Bibles might seem, at first glance, to violate the First Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of an official religion, as allowing distribution could be construed as de facto approval. However, I'd say there's a considerable distance between "allowing" and "establishing." Also, there's the issue of compulsion; no one is being forced to take a Bible. Furthermore, when one considers that Christianity, unlike all other religions, is one of the foundations of Western civilization, it is only reasonable that students be exposed to it, even if only from an academic and non-religious perspective. So in distinction to the liberal agenda of "equality" for everyone and everything, Christianity is not "equal" to other religions; in the West, it is the most important one, and should have a place of prominence, even in the public sphere. Yet we still want to preserve students' right to practice religion as they see fit.

So how to solve this seeming conundrum? I'd take it back to the 1950s, when common sense reigned and political correctness wasn't even a nightmare/wet dream yet. The 1950s was the last time America was sure of itself, that our society believed in not only its rightness but also its righteousness. Would society at large have objected to Bible distribution at a high school in 1955? I seriously doubt it.

The judge misruled.

Darn! Sorry about the double post.

I take it. Squid, you'll have no objection when the Hare Krishnas show up on campus to pass out their literature.

Actually, I don't think it's appropriate for Hare Krishnas to be allowed to target high schools, because Hare Krishnaism is utterly foreign to our culture and society.

Having said that, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to have religions of the world (even Islam!) presented to the students in any of a variety of formats, such as classes, in-class presentations, or school assemblies. The only caveat is that it would have to be a shared stage, and that Christianity, as a foundation of our civilization, should get top billing (as it were). This doesn't mean proselytizing; it means that the long-lasting, formational effect of Christianity on Western culture should be made explicit. After all, as we see even on this blog, there are those who are ignorant of this fact.

Squidley,
I thought we would be on the same side on this one. We both think the judge misruled. But you really don't get this "America" you keep talking about. Mennonites, Jews, Chinese of many faiths, Moslems, Catholics, atheists and Protestants have all come here from somewhere else. The Venerated Squidley forebearers came here from someplace else. We are the melting pot. At some point you are going to have to get over the fact that your plain vanilla version is not the flavor of America. To allow the Gideons to distribute their mythology but prevent others from doing the same is exactly what the Constitution was written to guard against. Yes, there is an election coming up but your candidate, Oliver Cromwell died several centuries ago. There are many countries including Islamic ones that foster a State Religion. Please go find one in your flavor and apply for citizenship.

This is why my kids go to private school. You know they actually have a religion classes that explores the different religions? Amazingly they still manage to get excellent grades in science and so far neither one has even hinted they might support Huckabee.

As for the Krishna comment, I don't think anyone would support a cult in our public schools. Same goes for Scientoligists. We really should be able to make judgments about these things.

Wally, your continued ignorance of, and hostility to, the actual, existing, historical America never ceases to amaze.

As for your "everyone came from somewhere else," that's true around the world. The only difference is how recently they came. It's the sort of trivially true statement that is about as meaningful and informative as "water is wet."

There is, in fact, an actual majority people in America. We have an ethnicity, a culture, a language, and a religion. People whose culture and religion are incompatible with our own should not be allowed to immigrate in the first place; experience shows they have a hard time adjusting, and sometimes, they want to change us to suit them (e.g., Moslems). Unacceptable.

Furthermore, we should be very careful about allowing people of different ethnicities to immigrate. Our experience with blacks gives us first-hand knowledge of how hard it is for different races to coexist; further examples are found throughout history around the globe.

The melting pot analogy has always been flawed. What actually happened is that immigrants assimilated to us, "a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs." (Federalist #2) In contrast, the modern cult of multiculturalism tells us to encourage immigrants retain their languages and customs, for us to adapt to them. This is a recipe for civilizational suicide--and the civilization that dies is ours, not theirs.

Finally, while you are free to call Norse, Ojibwa, Greek, and other beliefs "mythology," you may not use that label for Christianity. The Gospels are presented as true accounts. They are the eyewitness tellings of what people saw and experienced. Here's the opening of the Gospel according to Luke:

"Since many have undertaken to compose an account of those things which have been fulfilled among us, as those who saw for themselves from the beginning and became servants of the word have handed it down to us, it seemed good for me also, since I have followed everything closely from the first, to write it out in order for you, most exalted Theophilus, so that you may learn the truth concerning those stories of which you have been informed."

The Gospels are not presented as mythology. They are not written as mythology. You are free to disbelieve, to call them a fabrication or a fantasy, but you are not free to call them "mythology."

Squid,
That's the beauty of the America I live in. I am free to call the Gospels mythology. You are free to tell others they are an accurate historical account. Each individual gets to consider if an itinerant Jewish reformer turned matzo and wine into human flesh and blood and fed it to his disciples. We both get to disagree and live here as long as we pay taxes and obey the law. In the America of your imagination, I would most likely be in jail.

Pursuit,
If you are playing by the rule that says the religion with the most members is not a cult, Christianity is in trouble. Or is it a certain number of centuries that makes a religion viable. Look out Mitt!
"We really should be able to make judgments about these things."
That always sounds good until it is somebody else making the call. Whatever happened to defending to the death the other guy's right to say what you disagree with.

Wally, like everyone else, you're free to act like an a-hole. You don't have to exercise that "right," yet you do anyway. Why is that? Yes, you're free to lie, to misrepresent, to distort, to insult--and you do these things, with alarming frequency--but why would you want to?

Wally's latest lie exposed: Christianity is the religion with the most adherents. Also, contrary to popular misinformation, it's also the fastest-growing one.

Incidentally, the ones with the totalitarian fantasies are the leftists, not me. Why is it that people are most likely to accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of?

Squid,
Did you really just say "I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"?
So back on topic Squid- "but you are not free to call them "mythology." or "Yes, you're free to lie, to misrepresent, to distort, to insult"-
Which is it?

My bad. At 33%, Christianity is the largest religious group in the world. So I suppose it is best if we make decisions for the other 67%. In fact, I think if we add God's vote to the picture, we have a mandate to do so.

Goodbye, Wally.

The comments to this entry are closed.