It’s hard to know what impact the election of Barack Obama as president will have on many of the things that concern Christians the most.
While we all know he is in favor of some of the things some Christians are not, like abortion and same-sex marriage, there are many other arguments that could be affected by the future governing powers.
At the Civil Forum held before the election at Saddleback mega-church in Lake Forest, Calif., Obama was asked what Christianity means to him on a daily basis. Obama responded, “It means I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. I know that I don’t walk alone. But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words, but also through deeds and expectations that God has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these — acting justly, loving mercy and walking humbly with our God.”
Noble words! But what effect will they have?
In Fredericksburg, Va., city Councilman Hashmel Turner opened council meetings with prayer and ended them “in the name of Jesus.” That brought trouble and a lawsuit.
“If you’re on government property these days, even (at) a public school or you’re a city council member,” he said, “the theory now in a lot of the courts is that you don’t have a right to speak or mention Jesus’ name.”
The lower courts ruled against him. They agreed — leave Jesus out of things.
The city has filed a petition before the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal to reverse the ruling.
Utah Highway Patrol Association is having a similar problem. Activists insist they must leave Jesus out.
The association, a private group, honors fallen state troopers who have been killed while doing their job. It has been doing this since 1974.
The group erects 12-foot steel crosses displaying the trooper’s name, rank and badge number and other brief information. Most of the crosses are erected on private land but there are a few on government properties with appropriate approval.
Now the American Atheist Association wants them removed.
Never mind the sacrifice the troopers made! Just keep Jesus out!
The Highway Patrol Association has said that it consults with the family of the slain trooper and puts up whatever symbol they desire. If the family were Muslims, they explain, they would have no problem in using a Muslim symbol instead.
But that doesn’t suit the atheists!
And on top of that, an appeals court has ruled in favor of the atheist group. The case has been in federal courts for some time and is now being taken before a higher appeals court.
It’s a pity some minority people can’t at least leave memorials alone!
On a different level, a Jewish stepmother did not win her court case against a Christian church. A little different from those mentioned above, she had filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit after her stepson made a prayer request for her that she might come to know Jesus and it was subsequently printed in a Florida church newsletter.
The Florida Supreme Court rejected her complaint, which, although it is possible to see how this would offend a person of Jewish faith, it still would have had enormous impact in the future on what could be said, or not said, in church newsletters. It would have meant that churches that publicly publish prayer requests could have been liable any time someone was offended by their doing so and might have affected church Web sites or e-mails as well as newsletters.
Schools have come under fire for a long time and there still seems to be much confusion about what students can do, say and wear when it comes to Christian symbols and beliefs.
A 12-year-old sixth-grader wore pro-life T-shirts to school in Hutchinson, Minn. That’s the way he felt and he wanted to make a statement. His plan was to wear them for a whole month, but during that month he was constantly told by teachers, and even the principal, to turn the shirt inside out and not to wear a similar one again. He was even threatened with suspension.
Attorney Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center went to bat for him. The organization is a national public interest law firm whose services are free of charge.
“The school has a written policy that allows children to wear these types of messages,” Rooney found. The school policy states that students may wear them so long as the messages do not cause disturbance in the classrooms.
The only disturbance, according to Rooney, was caused by the teachers and principal who fussed at the boy.
In this case, the school district settled out of court and agreed that T-shirts like Rooney wore are allowed in school.
While the Constitution states that there can be no congressional establishment of religion, it does protect the right of citizens to exercise religion and protect freedom of speech. To me, it does not seem that wearing a T-shirt, or erecting a cross as a memorial, is doing any more than simply stating the way that person feels. It’s a far cry from establishing a religion!
I’m glad in this case the school wised up!
And my response...
The author seems to be incapable of recognizing the difference between "free speech" and "government endorsement".
A child wearing a t-shirt to school could not be interpreted as "government endorsement" by any reasonable American citizen.
Erecting crosses on government property (regardless of who paid) can easily be construed as "government endorsement" of religion. Erecting the crosses on private property with private funds however is not "government endorsement" and easily falls within the realm of "free speech".
A city councilman openly leading a prayer, at a city council meeting, on city taxpayers time is absolutely "government endorsement" of religion, and only an idiot wouldn't be able to see that. The councilman is however free to say prayers non-stop on his personal time outside of government business, be it at church or in the grocery store, as long as it's clear that he's expressing his personal views and not acting as a government representative.
Besides the US Constitution prohibiting government endorsement of religion, in 1797 the US Senate unanimously passed the Treaty of Tripoli which clearly states "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ". There was no dissent and no angry mobs protesting in the streets.
Our government was founded on secular principals of freedom for all. God was only recently forced into our government by people insecure in their religious beliefs and needing government endorsement to validate them. It's time that we returned our government to it's original values of freedom and liberty. If your religious beliefs are so tenuous that you require the government to prop them up, then maybe it's also time for you to reevaluate those beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment