Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Naming God in Public School

Some may know that a Nevada school cut off the microphone on a valedictorian who started to share the gospel in the middle of her valedictorian speech, invoking the idea of the "establishment clause" of the Constitution.

These things really make me angry. I am no lawyer or scholar of the Constitution. But I feel quite confident that this is nothing like what the establishment clause was about. Wasn't it about keeping the nation from espousing a particular form of Christianity as the form to the exclusion of the others. I take it against the backdrop of a world where Catholics burned Protestants at the stake and Protestants burned Catholics and both burned Anabaptists.

And I think this was very wise. As far as religion is concerned, Congress should ensure that the United States is a place where everyone can practice religion as they please--as long as their religion does not violate more important principles (so I'm not allowed to murder even if it is part of my religion). The non-establishment clause is about creating an environment where everyone can worship their god in their own way, not about stifling religion out of the public arena.

So how is forbidding a Christian from talking about God in their speech against the Constitution? By the way, the Constitution doesn't actually forbid individual states from establishing a particular religion. Maryland could go Roman Catholic if it wanted. Perhaps this was part of the original mix as well--Congress is not to take sides between states who fall down on different sides of the Christian equation.

It's all a crock, in my opinion. A bunch of stupidity. I don't think that Congress should legislate morality of a specific faith, but I don't think the government has any place forbidding the free and open expression of any religion either. Bring on the manger scene on the courthouse, and the ten commandments understood as an important example of law, and the Menorah, and the Kwanza stuff and a Koran for all I care. But let everyone do it.

If there's one good thing about Bush, it's the fact that the current court won't stand for this nonsense. No doubt someone's already offering to back a lawsuit by this girl. And it will win.

By the way, I see no real value in irritating a captive audience--who doesn't know about Christianity? Who's going to convert because she says a few words about God? Saying the words isn't evangelism. Following someone around reading a Bible is not evangelism. Ticking off a captive audience--doesn't help the cause. So the girl probably is an idiot. At the very least she broke her promise not to read the part of the speech she did (did she lie when she said she wouldn't?).

But she has every right to say what she wants to say about the religion. And there's nothing wrong with public schools doing their best to teach religion as objectively as possible if they want to. I mean, it's not like the audience couldn't help but become Christians. It's not like they melted or something. And next year if a Muslim becomes valedictorian, they can say how great Allah is. I'll be in no danger of caving in if I'm there, oh ye of feeble mind.

9 comments:

Jon said...

Amen

First of all I can't believe how ignorant that school district is. I believe the valedictorian could slap them a lawsuit and win.

Second of all, my sister was valedictorian of her class and laced her speech with Bible verses to support a garden/plant nurture analogy in her speech. Countless people have asked for copies of her speech (who have in turn shared with others who are not even acquaintances with the family) and countless others have complimented her on how wonderful her speech is. If the microphone had been turned off on her my family and my entire community would have been outraged and more than offended.

Something like that is like a slap in the face.

Anonymous said...

I don't know. I think the school district did the right thing. They reviewed her speech beforehand and told her she wasn't allowed to "start preaching". They suggested an appropriate way to edit the speech for the occassion and warned her that she would be cut off if she started preaching. State law in Nevada apparently has been clearly established and the school district followed it.
The girl chose to "start preaching" and was duly cut off. I think this falls in line with "innappropriate for the occassion". Surely you don't think that someone invited to speak should be allowed to say ANYTHING. What if they started preaching racism? What if they started cussing out individuals in the student body who they didn't like? What if they preached a message of hate or started talking about their addiction to speed or something? There's a time and place for preaching the gospel and I think the girl was in the wrong place to be doing it.

Ken Schenck said...

Without knowing the full details, you may be right Daniel about them turning her off. But on the talk shows, they have not been arguing so much that they did it because she violated a prior agreement. They've been pushing the "establishment clause" thing.

I think I agree with you that it is appropriate for a school to ask a speaker not to say certain things and then enforce their wishes. And I don't think a valedictorian speech is an appropriate place for "in your face" proselytism. But I don't buy the "separation" argument. If this were the reason--and it's the one they're emphasizing--then I think they were wrong. I want this issue to go to the Supreme Court once and for all so we can stop being afraid of religious expression in all spheres of life.

Anonymous said...

Here's a link to the full story.

We should never be afraid to speak of Christ. We should also never be afraid to suffer the repercussions of speaking of Christ. In this we might possibly take a small part in the suffering of our savior and the saints.

Why would a supreme court decision be neccessary for us to stop fearing?

Ken Schenck said...

Do you think this was a time for "civil disobedience," to refuse to submit to those in authority over you? I believe individuals can be "called" to civil disobedience in various ways at various times. In far more situations, I feel like people call themselves and then call it God.

My desires for a Supreme Court decision are not so much a matter of my Christianity as of my understanding and advocacy of the Constitution. I'm quite proud of most of this eighteenth century social contract and hate to see it perverted by the often heard "separation" interpretation. At least I see it as a perversion.

I believe a certain segment has (cleverly) used to pry Christianity from its position of power in American society--and particularly its propagation among children. Very clever. But someone talking about the glories of native American religion would likely be applauded by these same individuals. Let them be... and let Christian children be applauded as well when they speak unoffensively about their faith.

My opinions...

Anonymous said...

"I believe a certain segment has (cleverly) used to pry Christianity from its position of power in American society--and particularly its propagation among children."

I strongly disagree with this statement. I know it's part of our Christian heritage to be/feel "opressed" - but it's pretty hard to be opressed when about 75-85% of Americans claim to be Christians! Christians are the vast majority. You don't see people trying to post excerpts from the Vedas or the Q'uran in courthouses, do you? You don't see people trying to lecture about the Great Spirit during valedictorian speeches. I'm sorry, but I haven't heard ONE SINGLE mention of Buddha or Vishnu in our public squares and city council meetings.
Honestly, let's stop pretending. Christianity is the majority and majorities are not generally the ones to BE opressed.
You're worried about christianity's propagation among children? Since when is it Government's job to facilitate religious instruction? Isn't that a parents job? And the church body's as well?

Sorry to be ranting....

Ken Schenck said...

Daniel, this is not the tone behind my words--there's no talk of oppression in my words here. The tone is almost an objective touchee. And you know well enough my own rantings against fundamentalists who taut America as a Christian nation--I do not think of America as a Christian nation and I agree with the non-establishment clause of the Constitution. I am not one who thinks it is helpful or ideal for America to pass bans on gay marriage and such. I like to think that I have a carefully nuanced position that is sane and avoids both extremes.

While I am very willing to be convinced otherwise, I am speaking of a process begun back in the 60's or 70's whereby a new interpretation of "separation of church and state" was used by a generation of judges and key educators--perhaps even appropriately in many cases--to make curricula and so forth more "objective" (values clarification and such--don't push values on children but let them clarify them for themselves). I think this happened and I write that dispassionately, not with any emotional bias. I would be glad to be shown how that might or might not be the case.

The percentage of Christians is not the point. In my opinion, there really weren't any Christian lobbyists at all until the 80's--there was no moral majority or any of the current machinery.

Be glad to be shown otherwise...

Jake Hogan said...

Dr. Schenck

I think that I agree with you on this one. I am a strong advocate of the separation of church and state, but, like you, I believe that this has gone way too far. I read that the arguement is that, just as at IWU the college democrats couldn't sponsor some kind of overtly anti-Christian event (go ahead and make the joke :-)) because we're a school-sponsered group, this girl couldn't have a religious speech because her platform was school-sponsored.

I really don't buy into that, of course. I find myself often sympathetic to the ACLU and their rabid defense of civil liberties, but this time around they're just going too far.

Of course, I think this girl in this particular case has a martyr complex and will look back at this and shake her head at her childishness. As you said, the good that has come from this may not be worth all the bad that has come from it. That said, I think it illustrates a mis-understanding of the establishment cause and other related ideas.

In France, a citizen cannot even wear a cross in a government building because of this idea of the secular state. I like things exactly how they are in our nation, and, although I don't think it will ever happen here, I realize how horrible such rules would be here. Such tensions over these issues is good, as they tend to make it so there is never any real change on the issue (I feel the same way about other issues as well, abortion, etc)

Interesting post, Dr. Schenck.

Anonymous said...

I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction to your statements.

It is interesting that you state, "I am speaking of a process begun back in the 60's or 70's whereby a new interpretation of 'separation of church and state' was used by a generation of judges and key educators..." From my understanding of the history of this subject, many changes were created in the 1950's to tie church and state more closely together. The 1950's are when "In God We Trust" became the national motto, "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance, and "So Help Me God" was officially added to the president's inauguration oath. The movements in the '60's and '70's that you speak of was a reaction to this. An attempt to get BACK to the traditional separation ( here's one reference to this).
Something to chew on, anyway. Again, I apologize for not taking your past thoughts into account when considering your current statements.