Education and religion were meant to go hand in hand. The founding fathers intended the youth of this country to be taught with the same principles they founded their country on.
Prayer in public school is not founding a state religion, it is however an exercises of the participating party’s religious freedom and to forbid it is infringing on that freedom. The founding father’s wanted the principles they built their country on to be taught in the schools. Benjamin Rush wrote in a letter in the 1970’s “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism. By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” It is evident that the founding fathers were far from opposed to teaching biblical and religious principles in the public schools. When the majority of the founding fathers were still living the Untied States Congress allowed the Bible to be taught in public schools. “In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools." Click here to read more.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Founding
So, because our nation was founded on Christian principles, Christianity should be given more freedom then other religions? Certainly not. The founders were clear in the first amendment that the government CANNOT limit someone's freedom to exercise their religion, nor will the government establish a state religion.
Let's fall back to the definition of religion. "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
So, the founding fathers created a country based on their "fundamental set of beliefs". Their religion. Therefore, to stray or vary from their basic system of beliefs would mean losing the foundation of our justice system.
This does not mean that the government will make all citizens become Christians. It does mean the government should stand fast and keep to the moral and ethical codes that it was founded on.
To read more quotes from the founders of this great nation visit here.
Let's fall back to the definition of religion. "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
So, the founding fathers created a country based on their "fundamental set of beliefs". Their religion. Therefore, to stray or vary from their basic system of beliefs would mean losing the foundation of our justice system.
This does not mean that the government will make all citizens become Christians. It does mean the government should stand fast and keep to the moral and ethical codes that it was founded on.
To read more quotes from the founders of this great nation visit here.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Individual V. Corporate
Thus, far I've discussed Religion on an individual level only. It is apparent that on a personal level it is nearly impossible to violate the Establishment Clause. Does the same principle apply in a communal setting? For instance, should a nativity scene be displayed on government owned property? Should the Bible be used as a school curriculum? For the answer to this question let's look at what the founding fathers may have said to such questions. After all since they are the ones who founded this great country certainly they must have some enlightening input.
Here are a few things the founding fathers had to say about Religion and our nation.
"Without a humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation." George Washington
"The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” The US Congress 1782
"I think the Christian religion is a Divine institution; and I pray to God that I may never forget the precepts of His religion or suffer the appearance of an inconsistency in my principle and practice." James Iredell Supreme Court Justice
These are just a few quotes from the men that founded our country. I don't believe George Washington, James Iredell or the US Congress would have had a problem with a nativity on government property, and I think they would certainly have been in favor of teaching the Bible in schools.
This does not mean they wanted to establish a nation wide religion, far from it. They were, however, aware that the principles they founded this country on were extracted from the Bible, and therefore the Bible should not be stricken from the government.
Here are a few things the founding fathers had to say about Religion and our nation.
"Without a humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation." George Washington
"The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” The US Congress 1782
"I think the Christian religion is a Divine institution; and I pray to God that I may never forget the precepts of His religion or suffer the appearance of an inconsistency in my principle and practice." James Iredell Supreme Court Justice
These are just a few quotes from the men that founded our country. I don't believe George Washington, James Iredell or the US Congress would have had a problem with a nativity on government property, and I think they would certainly have been in favor of teaching the Bible in schools.
This does not mean they wanted to establish a nation wide religion, far from it. They were, however, aware that the principles they founded this country on were extracted from the Bible, and therefore the Bible should not be stricken from the government.
Seperation from Government.
So, what's all this fuss about "Separation of Church and State"? Since Church and State are to be separate does religion really have a role in American culture?
When asked if religion should play a role in the culture around them most would agree, as long as it is within the confines of "separation of church and state". However, it would not be far amiss to assume that most American citizens are not certain of the origins of the phrase they so easily use to dismiss such things as, prayer in schools and the word ’Christmas’. It is largely thought to be found in the constitution, therefore giving it added weight. Of course, the phrase in question is not in the United States Constitution. It is actually found in a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson is simply elaborating on what the constitution so clearly already addresses in the Establishment Clause. He is reverberating that government should have no say in some one's religious choices. However, it does not follow that people's religion should have no say in government. A government void of people's individual beliefs would no longer be a government of the people, for the people. You can't separate and extract some one's values and beliefs from their opinions and judgement. Religion (an individuals way of thinking/believing) cannot be dissected from their actions and behaviors.
When asked if religion should play a role in the culture around them most would agree, as long as it is within the confines of "separation of church and state". However, it would not be far amiss to assume that most American citizens are not certain of the origins of the phrase they so easily use to dismiss such things as, prayer in schools and the word ’Christmas’. It is largely thought to be found in the constitution, therefore giving it added weight. Of course, the phrase in question is not in the United States Constitution. It is actually found in a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson is simply elaborating on what the constitution so clearly already addresses in the Establishment Clause. He is reverberating that government should have no say in some one's religious choices. However, it does not follow that people's religion should have no say in government. A government void of people's individual beliefs would no longer be a government of the people, for the people. You can't separate and extract some one's values and beliefs from their opinions and judgement. Religion (an individuals way of thinking/believing) cannot be dissected from their actions and behaviors.
Seperation From Religion.
Does Religion have a place in American society? More specifically does religion have a place in government? Should government be void of all religious interference? People who hold public offices should lay there religion, their system of beliefs, at the government's door.
This line of thinking is not practical or constitutional. The Constitution speaks directly and clearly about religion in the Establishment Clause, found in the first amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
It would appear that the Founders’ intent when penning the Establishment Clause was by prohibiting the establishment of a state religion, such as the one they left behind in England, to protect religion from government, not government from religion. There is no place in the founding documents of the United States that indicate that our government should be completely void of and separate from religion. In fact, it appears to be a violation of the principles of the constitution to prohibit an individual to display religious decorations at his job, even if the individual is employed by the government. The Constitution clearly states that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. To exhibit a monument of the Ten Commandments, a cross or crucifix in one’s workplace would not be a breach of the Constitution, whether one works in an insurance office or a court house. The First Amendment does not come with the qualifier, “you may prohibit someone’s free exercise of religion if they are employed by the government.” The first amendment, in fact, does not come with any qualifiers, it plainly says that the government is not to encroach on the free exercise of religion.
The first Constitution was created as a set of checks and balances for the government. To protect the people from the government, not the government from the people. The Establishment Clause is a perfect example this fact. It is impossible for an individual to violate the Constitution, beacuse the Constitution is a set of laws for the government...not the people.
This line of thinking is not practical or constitutional. The Constitution speaks directly and clearly about religion in the Establishment Clause, found in the first amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
It would appear that the Founders’ intent when penning the Establishment Clause was by prohibiting the establishment of a state religion, such as the one they left behind in England, to protect religion from government, not government from religion. There is no place in the founding documents of the United States that indicate that our government should be completely void of and separate from religion. In fact, it appears to be a violation of the principles of the constitution to prohibit an individual to display religious decorations at his job, even if the individual is employed by the government. The Constitution clearly states that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. To exhibit a monument of the Ten Commandments, a cross or crucifix in one’s workplace would not be a breach of the Constitution, whether one works in an insurance office or a court house. The First Amendment does not come with the qualifier, “you may prohibit someone’s free exercise of religion if they are employed by the government.” The first amendment, in fact, does not come with any qualifiers, it plainly says that the government is not to encroach on the free exercise of religion.
The first Constitution was created as a set of checks and balances for the government. To protect the people from the government, not the government from the people. The Establishment Clause is a perfect example this fact. It is impossible for an individual to violate the Constitution, beacuse the Constitution is a set of laws for the government...not the people.
Religion.
To have a clear understanding of the role religion should play in peoples lives, both public and private, I think it is necessary to determine what religion is.
The Dictionary definition of religion is; "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices."
Working with this definition it would be impossible to separate religion from any one's life, public or private. Even those who claim to belong to no 'religion' would still have to admit that there are certain things they believe and therefore practice. It could be said with almost certainty that everyone believes they are alive. So, they are adhering to that particular belief and living there life accordingly.
A much more narrow definition of religion is; "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"
This narrows things down quite a bit. After all not everyone is involved with "devotional and ritual observances". However, does this mean that people that claim to belong to no religion are free of any system of beliefs? Certainly not. Everyone believes in something. So, why would the individuals who choose to worship corporately or adhere to rituals and observances be singled out concerning there 'religion' in the public realm, as they so often are?
So, everyone has religion. Wither they are an atheist, Buddhist or Christian. Everyone believes in something. It is therefore, necessary that religion play a role in peoples' lives. It is therefore, unavoidable that religion will play a part in peoples' lives.
The Dictionary definition of religion is; "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices."
Working with this definition it would be impossible to separate religion from any one's life, public or private. Even those who claim to belong to no 'religion' would still have to admit that there are certain things they believe and therefore practice. It could be said with almost certainty that everyone believes they are alive. So, they are adhering to that particular belief and living there life accordingly.
A much more narrow definition of religion is; "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"
This narrows things down quite a bit. After all not everyone is involved with "devotional and ritual observances". However, does this mean that people that claim to belong to no religion are free of any system of beliefs? Certainly not. Everyone believes in something. So, why would the individuals who choose to worship corporately or adhere to rituals and observances be singled out concerning there 'religion' in the public realm, as they so often are?
So, everyone has religion. Wither they are an atheist, Buddhist or Christian. Everyone believes in something. It is therefore, necessary that religion play a role in peoples' lives. It is therefore, unavoidable that religion will play a part in peoples' lives.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Fundamental. That's where it starts.
I am aware that the title of my blog is broad and leaves much room for personal interpretation as to what "Real Life" may mean. I will just throw it out there that I didn't mean for my blog name to cause any kind of confusion, I was simply going for catchy alliteration. Never fear, I do plan to explain the topic of my research paper in depth.
The thesis for my research project is almost directly out of my Comp II book (Everything's an Argument). All quoted text in the following post will be from this book. The title of the chapter I will be basing my project on is What Role Should Religion Play in Public Life? (That might have served as a more practical name for my blog, but it's not near as catchy.) The chapter is a compilation of essays and writings about faith and religion in the public sector. This chapter attempts to shed some light on questions such as; How Does faith play into constitutional rights? How should people of faith move in society? Politics?
The first selection in this chapter is an excerpt from a report by Laurie Goodstein called, More Religion, but not the Old-Time Kind. This article explores the rise of some religious sects and the decline of others, such as fundamentalism in various religions. However, with the decline of fundamentalism it does not follow that religion as a whole is lessening. In fact it is the opposite. Religion is rising at an astounding pace almost all over the world. With this fact in mind most people jump to the conclusion that hostility would also be on the rise. Hostility between differing religious views. Goodstein states "What does all this rising religiosity add up to? It is easy to assume that a more religious world means a more fractious world, where violent conflict is fueled by violent fundamentalist movements."(pg 844) She goes on to elaborate on this train of thought.
This entire essay is somewhat negative towards fundamentalists of all religions. I consider myself a somewhat fundamental Christian, and therefore don't completely agree with Goodstein's view on this issue. Her idea and definition of fundamentalism is religion with a political agenda and (or) bent. This is shown as a negative trait throughout the article. A quality that turns people away, because of its association with violence. However, it would be untrue to state that most fundamental Christian sects (Baptists, Church of Christ, etc.) are frequently involved in violent or aggressive behavior. The opposite is true. Fundamental Christians are rarely, if ever, involved in such disorderly conduct. The Christian religion is based on love, and treating people accordingly. It would be true to state that Christian religion is outspoken about what it believes, but aren't all movements and religions? It would be foolish to expect Christians to keep silent on matters that are important to them. We don't expect the Homosexual movement to keep silent, we don't expect African Americans to keep silent about issues that are important to them.
Goodstein uses the Pentecostal movement as an example of a denomination that has branched off from main stream fundamental Christianity, and is booming as a result. Goodstein says; "The world's fastest growing religion is not any type of fundamentalism, but the Pentecostal wing of Christianity. While Christian fundamentalists are focused on doctrine and the inerrancy of Scripture, what is most important for Pentecostals is what they call "spirit-filled" worship..." (pg 844)
This conjures up the picture of care-free Pentecostals with nothing on their minds, but worship. On the other hand you have your Bible beating, agenda pushing, fundamentalist who are stuck in their ways. I think this is a faulty depiction of both factions described in this sentence.
For now I think it will suffice to say that every religion, group, organization, etc. has views on specific issues that it deems important. It should not be held against them if they choose to be vocal about those views.
The thesis for my research project is almost directly out of my Comp II book (Everything's an Argument). All quoted text in the following post will be from this book. The title of the chapter I will be basing my project on is What Role Should Religion Play in Public Life? (That might have served as a more practical name for my blog, but it's not near as catchy.) The chapter is a compilation of essays and writings about faith and religion in the public sector. This chapter attempts to shed some light on questions such as; How Does faith play into constitutional rights? How should people of faith move in society? Politics?
The first selection in this chapter is an excerpt from a report by Laurie Goodstein called, More Religion, but not the Old-Time Kind. This article explores the rise of some religious sects and the decline of others, such as fundamentalism in various religions. However, with the decline of fundamentalism it does not follow that religion as a whole is lessening. In fact it is the opposite. Religion is rising at an astounding pace almost all over the world. With this fact in mind most people jump to the conclusion that hostility would also be on the rise. Hostility between differing religious views. Goodstein states "What does all this rising religiosity add up to? It is easy to assume that a more religious world means a more fractious world, where violent conflict is fueled by violent fundamentalist movements."(pg 844) She goes on to elaborate on this train of thought.
This entire essay is somewhat negative towards fundamentalists of all religions. I consider myself a somewhat fundamental Christian, and therefore don't completely agree with Goodstein's view on this issue. Her idea and definition of fundamentalism is religion with a political agenda and (or) bent. This is shown as a negative trait throughout the article. A quality that turns people away, because of its association with violence. However, it would be untrue to state that most fundamental Christian sects (Baptists, Church of Christ, etc.) are frequently involved in violent or aggressive behavior. The opposite is true. Fundamental Christians are rarely, if ever, involved in such disorderly conduct. The Christian religion is based on love, and treating people accordingly. It would be true to state that Christian religion is outspoken about what it believes, but aren't all movements and religions? It would be foolish to expect Christians to keep silent on matters that are important to them. We don't expect the Homosexual movement to keep silent, we don't expect African Americans to keep silent about issues that are important to them.
Goodstein uses the Pentecostal movement as an example of a denomination that has branched off from main stream fundamental Christianity, and is booming as a result. Goodstein says; "The world's fastest growing religion is not any type of fundamentalism, but the Pentecostal wing of Christianity. While Christian fundamentalists are focused on doctrine and the inerrancy of Scripture, what is most important for Pentecostals is what they call "spirit-filled" worship..." (pg 844)
This conjures up the picture of care-free Pentecostals with nothing on their minds, but worship. On the other hand you have your Bible beating, agenda pushing, fundamentalist who are stuck in their ways. I think this is a faulty depiction of both factions described in this sentence.
For now I think it will suffice to say that every religion, group, organization, etc. has views on specific issues that it deems important. It should not be held against them if they choose to be vocal about those views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)