Are we really in Kansas, Dorothy: Back to the Future
An interesting, yet unbelievable article appeared in our newspaper today. Basically, it centers around the issue of whether teachers should be allowed to present non-scientific theories in schools. The way I read the article, the purpose is to balance the theory of evolution with creation. One board member notes, and I quote: "We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity-not science."
Now the issues regarding the separation of Church and State and the First Amendment are clearly at issue here. What is more puzzling, however, is this idea that our country is based upon Christianity. What about all those of different faiths, such as Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddists? Do they count? And if not, why not.
As I read this article, I began to think about whether someone would purpose the idea that we go ever further backwards and challenge the theories of Christopher Columbus that the earth is round, or even to the point of the declaration by the Greeks who concluded that the sun revolves around the earth.
It seems that anything is possible these days! At least I live close to a place called Medevil Times. The practice might be worthwhile given these types of issues by those in America today.
Thank you for your minds.
Now the issues regarding the separation of Church and State and the First Amendment are clearly at issue here. What is more puzzling, however, is this idea that our country is based upon Christianity. What about all those of different faiths, such as Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddists? Do they count? And if not, why not.
As I read this article, I began to think about whether someone would purpose the idea that we go ever further backwards and challenge the theories of Christopher Columbus that the earth is round, or even to the point of the declaration by the Greeks who concluded that the sun revolves around the earth.
It seems that anything is possible these days! At least I live close to a place called Medevil Times. The practice might be worthwhile given these types of issues by those in America today.
Thank you for your minds.
17 Comments:
-John Adams (in a letter to his wife) "Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality along which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."
-George Washington "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports."
-James Madison (1778 speech) "We have staked the whole fortune of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God."
In 1789, the same year in which Congress approved the First Amendment, James Madison served on a committee that approved congressional chaplains. Madison also recommended days of thanksgiving at the behest of Congress on four separate occasions. Though as president, Thomas Jefferson objected to nationally sponsored days of prayer, he nevertheless recommended to Congress in 1803 a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which included a yearly federal stipend of $100 for seven years to support a Catholic priest. As president, George Washington proclaimed days of thanksgiving, frequently spoke in churches, prayed at public occasions when a chaplain was not available, and invoked the name of God in public pronouncements. During his presidency he addressed Dutch Reformed, Protestant Dutch, German Lutheran, United Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, German Reformed, Episcopal, Congregational, Swedenborgian, Quaker, United Brethren, Universalist and Jewish meetings.
Also, note that during the administrations of all of the early presidents, the federal buildings in DC were used as churches on Sunday.
Christianity happened to be the religion of the day...but the principle was that they wanted people to be free to practice their religion, and not FORCED to practice one particular religion, but neither DENIED the right to practice one either.
Barbara -- wow, that one really pressed my brain into service. You certainly know how to stimulate the cerebral cortex. I am just bummed that we are a couple of thousand miles apart...I'd love to toss these ideas around with the DH's along and a generous glass of wine. Keep 'em coming!
Whit:
You impress me with your wealth of infomation. I do wish we lived closer, and we could trash about ideas over coffee (a non-drinker here.)
Being a lawyer, the issue regarding seperation of church and state is significant to me. I do not think ANYONE should EVER be denied the right to practice his/her religion. I simply do not believe that religion belongs in public schools, or forums. For me, religion is a private matter expressed which can or cannot be expressed in a public, non-secular setting. I feel quite strongly on this point actually. Perhaps much of the reason is that I am a practicing Jew, and being in a minority, in a majority gives me a different perspective. Couple that with my legal background, and it is as if I have weapons of mass destruction on my person!
Thanks for the ever stimulating conversation and information!
No legal background here. I guess I get frustrated when we start trying to throw out the baby with the bath water on the religion issue. Even non-believers believe in something, and to force an 'agnostic' point of view -- to take God out of everything is to, in fact, impose a point of view on people. For those of us who believe that God is part of all creation (and is Above all creation), that to deny Him is the antithesis of what we profess. I can't speak for all people who argue for Christianity to be IN the schools, because they come in all variations of ideology. I expect my children to be able to silently pray before their meals -- if they feel led to, but not compulsory...and to mention their faith to friends IF it comes up in the conversation. It is not a directive or an expectation from home.
I don't send my children to private or Christian school because we don't send our kids to school to learn our value system. We learn that at home and at church, and we hope that those values are lived out the other 6 days of the week. We expect them to behave in a way that is in line with what we believe, and that basically boils down to 1) Be honest; 2) Be responsible; and 3) Be kind. Do those line up with Christianity? Absolutely. And I would venture to guess that they line up with other world religions, too.
I think the main thing that would propel the morality and values discussion along in the public debate is for Christians (in the broad, general sense -- myself included) to settle down, take a chill pill and realize that we do not have the monopoly on morality. I'm not well-read on world religions, but I think I speak with some authority here that Jewish people or Hindus or Buddhists don't advocate killing anyone...or stealing...or lying...or being mean or unkind.
There are many values that we do share, and if we focused more on what we have in common, perhaps the din would lower enough that we could start from there and have a conversation.
It seems that when two people, like you and I, have an actual discussion instead of throwing flaming word bombs at each other, that we are able to meet on the points of agreement, and agree to disagree on the others...and then we continue on with mutual admiration for the mutually admirable virtues.
If I had to agree 100% with every person I met in order to enjoy their company, I'd be an unmarried old lady with no friends, a miserable job, and be extremely tired of having to agree with myself all the time!
No one is denying anyone's right to practice their religion. They are merely wishing they would keep it to themselves.
Being able to quote is not a sign of wisdom, merely of collecting quotes that support one's viewpoint.
Facts are not the same as viewpoints. The Founding Fathers were Christians.
I referenced quotes so that I used their own words instead of mine -- no interpretation, just reporting what was recorded.
The rest of it is my viewpoint (and I don't know that I claimed that there was any particular wisdom in them, just my humble opinion)...and I don't recall forcing or even asking anyone to think or act the same way I do.
Discussion = an exchange of ideas.
I agree that this topic is great for discussion, and am quite satsified to see that although it may hit a nerve, the conversation, and comments are intelligent, civilized and well-spoken.
As indicated in my 'mission statement,' we can agree to disagree.
Believing in God, in my opinion, and being a country that is "Christian" as the woman from Kansas stated in the article, which made the front page, by the way, are distinguishable. Moreover, the right to believe in God, and the right to choose a relgion, regardless of what it may be, Christan Jewish, Muslim, are freedoms guaranteed to us by the U.S. Contstitution. These rights are fundamental, basic rights, which have made us a great country, set apart from many others. To call us a Chirstian nation, and then go ahead and teach a subject that the Courts have concluded violates the seperation of powers doctrine, is to chisile away, not guarantee those fundamental rights.
Briger:
Here is the way I see what is happening in this country today.
For one, I see extremism being thrashed out upon Americans by the Republican party, resulting in a lack of respect for the seperation between church and state, which are guarantees by the US Constitution.
It is indeed curious to me how a party which has prided itself on being one of less governmental controls is truly attempting to yeild more and more control over the individuals today. A good case in point is when Congress made an attempt to pass a law in the Schiavo case because it did not agree witht the rulings of the state and federal courts.
Saying that you want less government in your lives and then taking positions and making laws that are diametrically opposed to such statements is unfair, and quite frankly scary for me as an American. Essentially, it equates freedom with strong arming.
Just adding a bit of info that many of you may find interesting. I was actually taught the theory of Evolution as a child in a Catholic elementary school. Yes, I was, and that was back in the early 60s.
From a Catholic point of view, the Church does not dispute the theory of Evolution. According to my teachers, back then and now, the Church believes that if in fact Evolution did happen, that at some point the Divine intervened, to breathe into life a human being.
I am not so sure why this issue continues to be so controversial. But I do see that for the most part, it is the Christian Right (conservatives) who continue to campaign against the teaching of Evolution in schools.
I'm so glad to be reading all of these posts, B! Very good topic!
I hope I have been able to make a worthwhile contribution in the telling of my own experience here.
Facts, and their selection, are used to support viewpoints.
The Founding Fathers' Christianity is often used to support the idea of a more Christian US.
I have seen these same three quotes in dozens of places, used to support the viewpoint that the US should be more Christian and less secular.
However, I rarely see quotes from Thomas Jefferson, who had a difficult relationship with Christianity, and professed himself a pantheist. Or Benjamin Franklin, who was a staunch secularist.
Discussion = exchange of ideas, but isolated quotes do not a full picture make.
Patti:
Being taught about evolution in a Catholic school is suprirsing to be, but one that makes my face light up with joy. Not because I thPattiink it is the "right" thing to do, but because it makes me admire the balanced and well informed information that was provided to you in a religious setting.
And you have made an outstanding point: Christianity and Catholisim are not necessary those views supported or expressed with the religious right. They can and often are very different. I have learned this from you, my friend.
b
L-girl -- If you read my post, nowhere in it do I advocate that Christianity needs to be thrust moreso into the marketplace. In fact, I think I went so far as to say that the things I expect of my family and my children are attributes that are valued by any religion and any culture -- honesty, responsibility and respect. That's it.
The quotes were to address the original question about our Founders being Christian. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes, anything can be taken out of context to prove a point, and if it appears I did that, then I apologize because that was not my intention. But saying that they were NOT Christian simply isn't true -- it was the religion of the time. And if you read the last sentence of my original post, I think you will see that we agree more than we disagree -- "Christianity happened to be the religion of the day...but the principle was that they wanted people to be free to practice their religion, and not FORCED to practice one particular religion, but neither DENIED the right to practice one either."
I think we're on the same page even if we have gotten there from different theologies.
"It is contended by many that ours is a Christian government, founded upon the Bible, and that all who look upon the book as false or foolish are destroying the foundation of our country. The truth is, our government is not founded upon the rights of gods, but upon the rights of men. Our Constitution was framed, not to declare and uphold the deity of Christ, but the sacredness of humanity. Ours is the first government made by the people and for the people. It is the only nation with which the gods have had nothing to do. And yet there are some judges dishonest and cowardly enough to solemnly decide that this is a Christian country, and that our free institutions are based upon the infamous laws of Jehovah."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, Individuality (1873)
This post raises the serious question of what it means to be "taught" something. I was raised Catholic by a spiritually free-thinking mom who believed in reincarnation and practiced transcendental meditation. We had a library with a collection of books with the following titles: Catholicism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, etc. My brothers and I were taught about world religions in the sense that we were taught what groups of people believed. This is quite different from being taught *what to believe*. I would ask my mother which religion was right, and she would shrug and say she didn't know, but isn't it interesting, honey, the way they all included compassion as a common value?
If (a) people would stop thinking about their children as property and realize that their own example has 1000% more impact on their kids than forced indoctrination; and (b) start thinking of the teaching of religion, evolution, and other ways of making sense of the world as things that people believe as opposed to WHAT IS TRUE and WHAT IS FALSE, these issues wouldn't take up so much political space. This is why I teach at the tertiary level. Since the kids are 18 and over, parents can't accuse me of tampering with their property. The question is, you want a smart kid or an obedient kid? Unfortunately too many people want the latter.
As for this being a Christian country, yeah, whatever. As a psychologist, I'm much more interested in the question of how authoritarian individuals with black-and-white worldviews are drawn to religious extremism than I am by how religions "produce" such individuals. The people who claim that this is a Christian country and therefore creationism should be taught in schools have problems waaaay beyond their affiliation with Christianity, not the least of which is their need to see the world in terms of black and white, good and bad. They use Christianity to support that worldview, but if it didn't exist they'd use something else, trust me. Heaven help their children.
"...weary of Christians proclaiming that we are a country founded on Christianity, as if we were a Theocracy. We are not. Many of the founding fathers may have been Christian, but they were wise enough to make a distinction between religion and politics."
That's exactly it. The US is not supposed to be "one nation under god" (added to the pledge during the anti-Communist 1950's, as I'm sure you know), it is supposed to be one nation under the Constitution. We are supposed to look to laws for social definition, not to religion.
Whit: I must be expressing myself poorly, because we are not on the same page. I'm disgusted by what I see as the Christian right's takeover of the US government. I think religion of any type has no place government or public life of any type. And I find the suggestion that anyone is being denied the right to practice Christianity in this country a total farce.
On a slightly different note, some confusion is caused by the use of the word "theory" in connection with evolution. Many people mistakenly believe a scientific theory is something that hasn't been proven. In the phrase "theory of evolution," the word theory means "a scientifically acceptable general principle that explains a phenomenon," such as the theory of relativity or the theory of the speed of light. It's not the colloquial expression of "I have a theory of what may have happened here".
So-called creationism is a belief system. Everyone is entitled to his/her own belief system. But evolution is science and can't be disputed by "I don't believe in it". ("I don't believe the world is round." "I don't believe smoking increases my risk of cancer.") Science can only be disputed by other science. In the case of evolution, it never has been.
L-girl -- I appreciate your circling back. If you read my third post on this topic you will see that I clearly state that I don't send my kids to school to learn our value system. If that is where I thought they needed to learn it, I would put them in a Christian school.
I don't think I ever addressed the Evolution/Creationism question, but was more responding to the thought on our Founding Fathers 'being' Christians.
While being a Christian myself, I agree that there are many things that are done by the "Christian Right" that are hateful and and are not "Christian" at all. And it makes me sad that we are all lumped in together because the extremism is all that is portrayed in the media. Yes, extremism exists (on both the left and right), but it doesn't define all of us, and it is unfair to paint all of us with a broad brush.
I notice that you took me to task when I used quotes FROM the founding fathers themselves, noting that any quotes can be used to support a viewpoint. Agreed. However, you didn't take lucea to task for her use of a quote. The difference in the two is that I was using quotes FROM the founding fathers as insight (for lack of a better word) into their expressed belief systems...and she used quotes ABOUT them (someone else's opinion of them.) While, yes, anyone can use a quote rightly or wrongly, in and out of context to support a point, I would think that using someone's own words to help shed light on what they may have intended is very different than using someone else's opinion of them.
I do appreciate the discussion, and there are probably other areas where we have something more in common. On this topic, though, perhaps we should just agree to disagree.
Respectfully, Whit
Something signficant that these posts have brought to light is this: not all Christans are part of the Christan right, and their extremisim and double standards in thought and actions too. I am not a Chirstan, and as noted in a few posts back, have found it rather odd that on the one hand, Jesus was supposed to be someone who accepted tolerance and understanding. This is far from anything I have ever heard from the Christan right. What I have seen from these posts are some Christan values that swing somewhere on the other side of extremism and values that are important to families as well.
That being said, I still maintain that the seperation of Church and State must be maintained if any respect for our Constitution of the United States is to be sought, for EVERYONE, regardless of religion. Evolution is based upon proven scientific theroy. Creationism, at least as articulated by this group in Kansas lends forth concepts and principles grounded soundly on Christanity. The quote that we are a Christan nation leaves me no other interpretation. This is a violation of Church and State in my opinion.
You have all given me an excellent idea for a topic tomorrow! Stay tuned.
What an intelligent, articulate and interesting group of people. I am humbled.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home