[IP] more on Law would put 'In God We Trust' in schools
------- Original message -------
From: Jim Huggins <jhuggins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 8/4/'05, 10:46
> From: DV Henkel-Wallace <gumby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [...]
> Repeated, public avowals of faith may appear threatening to some, but to
> me they always come off as the actions of people trying to compensate
> for their own doubts or self-perceived lack of faith. Those with deep
> and strong religious convictions are usually content with their beliefs
> and feel little need to proselytize.
I'm trying to find a way to respond to this with charity and courtesy;
forgive me if I fail.
I think there's a big concept here that is being missed.
There is a large portion of the conservative Christian community who
*feels* systematically excluded from public life. Members of this
community feel that *any* mention they make in public of Christian
religious topics is immediately ruled inappropriate and pushed aside,
while any other discussion (including religious discussions) is found
appropriate as part of a diverse society.
Now you may argue that those people are really a part of the default
majority culture, and are in fact not being excluded from life. But
perception is reality, and these people have been systematically persuaded
that they are being excluded. Whether or not they *are* excluded, they
*feel* excluded, and that feeling drives a lot of actions like this.
I know the dangers of arguing from an anecdote, but let me offer one
anyways.
A good friend of mine, who is a conservative Christian, sends her students
to a public charter school. During December, they take a week to
celebrate Hanukkah, a week to celebrate Kwanzaa, and then a week for
students to celebrate "their own holiday traditions" (which ends up being
a celebration of Christmas). It seems odd to her that Hanukkah and
Kwanzaa get explicit treatment (especially when the school has zero
students of African-American descent), but Christmas can't be explicitly
mentioned for fear of breaching church-state issues. She has no objection
to her children learning about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa; in fact, she is very
supportive of those lessons. She just wonders why Christmas can't stand
on equal footing.
I don't disagree with the claim above that some who complain are doing so
out of an emphasis on external rather than internal piety, and that many
with strong internal faith do not need external endorsements. (Though I
would argue that in many religious faiths, strong religious convictions do
directly lead to proselytization. But I digress.) At the same time, I
think there is a larger group who feels systematically excluded from
public life, and sees a dramatic public move towards re-writing the
stories of American history in ways that de-emphasize (or eliminate
entirely) the religious motivations of public figures. They are simply
looking for someone to tell them that they are valued as a part of our
society.
And if they can't get that acknowledgement through tradition or public
courtesy, they'll resort to legislation and the courts. In my opinion,
that's why you're seeing a flurry of laws and lawsuits regarding public
expressions of religious expression (e.g. 10 Commandment displays, the
Pledge, the motto).
As I sit here, I'm watching highlights of Pope John Paul II's funeral,
held earlier today. The U.S. sent 5 public figures (Presidents Bush,
Clinton, and Bush, Laura Bush, and Condolezza Rice) to represent the U.S.
at the funeral of a *religious* figure. I don't hear anyone saying that
this was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the state. It is
simply an acknowledgement of the importance of this religious figure to
millions of Americans. I think if there was more acknowledgements of this
kind in our culture, there'd be less legal battles.
--Jim Huggins
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/