Religious Right--Part II: School Prayer
Thinking about what I wrote last night on American evangelical Christianity, I decided it would be a good idea to deal with specific topics on their agenda. I am going to frame these, following the thread that they hold the wisdom of the underside in our society. What would be an integral-radical middle type response to questions like school prayer, church/state, abortion, and so on.
Topic 1: School Prayer
As I mentioned in yesterday's note, evangelicals did not begin the anti-abortion/pro-life crusade. The Evangelical camp was more organized originally around the abolition of Biblical studies and prayer in public schools.
[Sidenote: My argument is based primarily on an article by Noah Feldman, Fellow at the New America Institute: http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2451]
The Constitution as it relates to the church/state issue has two clauses: one on establishment, the other of free expression.
The Constitution states that the government will make no law "establishing" any religious group as the official religion of the United States. This radical idea came out of Thomas Jefferson (Father of the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison's (Father of the Constitution) movement to de-establish the Anglican Church as the official church in the State of Virginia. The Anglican Church in Virginia was receiving money from the taxes of Virginians. But many Virginians were not members of the Church of England. Patrick Henry argued that the best solution would be to give a proportion of moneys to each of the denominations based on their representation in the populace. Jefferson and Madison took the more radical route and desired to cut the funding all together. Jefferson was more secular than Madison no doubt. Jefferson might even have been combative with the Church, and hoped to see the churches/sects crumble as a result. Madison, however, seems more to have sincerely believed that both for the sake of government and the sake of religion, they should be separated. Religion has a horrible track record when it comes to coozying up to powers of the world. And rational government often fails in the face of ideologically-driven wars and policies emerging from unquestioned religious belief systems.
So the government would not formally establish a State Church as in England or german principalities.
The other clause states that the government will not impede the free expression of one's religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not endanger the livelihood of others (i.e. human sacrifice).
Now those two clauses from time to time come into conflict. During the 19th century, Protestant ministers would routinely teach the Bible in public schools. Both in the North and South. The United States up until the later half of the 19th century was a predominantly white, Protestant country.
Then the waves of European immigration started and the move to the cities took over. Many Catholic immigrants came from Ireland, Germany, Italy. Orthodox Christians as well as Jews from Eastern Europe. A series of anti-immigrant WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) groups arose--think Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York--like the Know-Nothings (not that they knew-nothing, they Catholics knew-nothing). Al Smith was defeated by Herbert Hoover based primarily on Hoover's platform: Smith will build a bridge to the Papacy.
Catholic schools began so that Catholics would not be subjected to Protestant theology in public schools. So the Catholics and Jews ghettoized themselves with their own schools, neighborhoods, sports team, and social clubs. And prayer-Biblical study from an evangelical Protestant point of view was still the rule of the day in public institutions.
Fast foward to the 50s/60s. The Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation was illegal.
Then the Warren Court made a series of decisions over the next decade or so--banning school prayer and the study of the Bible in public institutions. The Democratic Party had shifted from being the New Deal Democrats--a combination of social progressives, unionized workers in the North, and Southern whites--to the JFK elite-New England liberals. The Democrats lost the Southern White vote with de-segregation, support for civil rights, and the banning of school prayer.
So what are the Evangelicals' claims on this subject. The Warren Court had argued that prayer in school violated the establishment clause--that praying to God (and especially to Jesus Christ) was an obvious signal that the government was establishing one religion (Christianity, and usually one form of Christianity, evangelical-reformed-Baptist) as the de facto state religion.
This issue came to a head with the widespread rejection of so-called traditional values by the 60s generation, particularly their rejection of WASP 1950s Ozzie and Harriet Eisenhower America.
The Evangelicals typically counter that their rights under the free expression clause are violated by the banning of school prayer.
Now, interesting to note that both the liberal (Warren Court) and conservative (evangelical) are right in what they argue. Prayer in school to God/Jesus Christ does violate the establishment clause, particularly after large minority segments exist in this country who do not define themselves or desire their children to be taught Judeo-Christian notions of divinity. AND the free expression of religion which is certainly not threatening to the life and limb of non-believers is being violated by banning school prayer.
Feldman's article rightly points out that Sandra Day O'Connor, the swing vote of the Supreme Court over the last 15 years, got it backwards. She voted for support for religious institutions--the office of faith-based ministries, tax credits for children to attend Catholic parochial schools--and against free expression of religious beliefs.
So what happens when the establishment and free exercise clause seem to be in conflict? The easiest way it would seem to parse the issue would be something like the following. The Government does not have a right to establish a religion as official in this country--no one running for office of any kind must pass a religious test--nor do they have the right to prevent public grounds from being used for religious observance. With the proviso that those observances do not threaten minority citizens. Now it is probably true that an upsurge in evangelical Bible-thumping would lead to more name-calling and verbal abuse for Jewish, gay, secular, Hindu, Muslim children. This is a sad fact. Schools could be places where instead children are taught civility and the healthy respect for religious difference that is the great hertiage of the United States--incidentally and unfortunately, the liberal groups like the ACLU have gone so far out there they decry the very educational structures that would help, like teaching "civics" and "moral training" in the classroom because that is an enfringement of people's rights. Sadly their rights are going to be much more infringed by learning nothing of respect for other groups in public school.
So, people have a right to use public grounds for prayer/Biblical study. However, to protect the (non)establishment clause, these religious ceremonies could not take place during school hours. If after school a bunch of kids want to go out on the football field and pray to Jesus, then that is their right. If that offends non-Christians, then they are free to have their own religious or non-religious ceremonies as well. On the baseball diamond if the football field is already occupied. The schools would not be preventing any religious observance. Now, in many cases schoolboards might make rules that would subterfugely put pressure against a Muslim or Hindu or Pagan religious ceremony. But that is where they could be called to the carpet. There would be no more excuse about the feds preventing their religion--they would be held to task. The right to school prayer would come at the cost of all forms of prayer or even anti-prayer if you will.
That is America. Being a minority in this country should mean that one's basic rights at protected--that is why we live in a republic thank God, not a democracy. In a pure democracy, in this country, that was just based on the will of the people, many parts of the Constitution would be overturned, particuarly the non-establishment of an official religion--but not that your point of view is always going to be given equal weight (in terms of quantity).
So the evangelicals, as holders (of some) of the wisdom of the underside, are right that we are neglecting are heritage, our greatness in preventing public forms of worship. They are wrong in their assertion that this country was founded on Christianity. Or Judeo-Christian notions. They cetainly played an influence. But remember the Founding Fathers were Deists. They were elite liberal--in the clasical modern sense not the postmodern sense. Alexander Hamilton today would be a moderate Republican. Then he was a liberal, by his day's standards. Jefferson made a version of the Gospels that took out all of the miraculous healings, the resurrection, and so on, and left only the parables and teaching episodes of Jesus. Those were the "rational" elements that were worth keeping. It was that man who wrote, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Not an evangelical Bible-believer. A Rational, Deistic, Architect, not the God of Biblical Revelation.
The mistaken notion that this was a Judeo-Christian nation from the start is the truth of the lower classes of our country. They typically have been such, and see the rest of the world through their (mistaken) lense. Movements like Mormonism managed to connected American Manifest Destiny political ideology with Biblical notions of a chosen people. They gave voice to the oucast from the (classical) liberal Northeast elite. Or the Baptist-Evangelical reference to America as the New Promised Land. They suffer because their religion is tied into American patriotism, and yet our government does not officially support--in some ways unofficially sure, but not ever officially. And some officially seek to undermine such a notion.
They are betwixt and between--they suffer so much in that no man's land. But that is their choice if they are willing to choose not to evolve. That is their choice (free expression) to hold such a fundamenatlist ethnocentric view. It is their choice to suffer the consequences of never being connected (non-establishment clause). The tension between those exists to create the negation of their current worldview, so they can transform to a higher plane. Most sadly choose not to, or have no reference or understanding as to that choice.
Because they are wrong about this country being Judeo-Christian in its origins, then the prayers/ceremonies can not take place, in my mind, during the time of school. That would violate the establishment clause.
On a sidenote: The issue over the word "God" in the Pledge of Alleigance has basically no relevance here. One: no one has to say the Pledge. Two: Nobody it takes it seriously. Some off-hand reference to God in the Pledge means about nothing to no one.
The other truth that the Evangelicals point to--although their reasons for holding it and what is to be done about are wrong--is that these things were handled at the judicial level and should have been handled at the legislative level. Or a combination of the two. The Judiciary striking down unconstitutional measures (the violation of the establishment clause) while the Legislature simultaneously builds up laws to bolster the free expression clause, creating a healthy environment in the newly deconstructed one. Otherwise a void remains. The Warren Court on a number of issues struck down oppressive policies in our country, but did not establishment positive measures in its place.
This later point will be discussed in greater detail in the next installation--abortion.
Topic 1: School Prayer
As I mentioned in yesterday's note, evangelicals did not begin the anti-abortion/pro-life crusade. The Evangelical camp was more organized originally around the abolition of Biblical studies and prayer in public schools.
[Sidenote: My argument is based primarily on an article by Noah Feldman, Fellow at the New America Institute: http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=2451]
The Constitution as it relates to the church/state issue has two clauses: one on establishment, the other of free expression.
The Constitution states that the government will make no law "establishing" any religious group as the official religion of the United States. This radical idea came out of Thomas Jefferson (Father of the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison's (Father of the Constitution) movement to de-establish the Anglican Church as the official church in the State of Virginia. The Anglican Church in Virginia was receiving money from the taxes of Virginians. But many Virginians were not members of the Church of England. Patrick Henry argued that the best solution would be to give a proportion of moneys to each of the denominations based on their representation in the populace. Jefferson and Madison took the more radical route and desired to cut the funding all together. Jefferson was more secular than Madison no doubt. Jefferson might even have been combative with the Church, and hoped to see the churches/sects crumble as a result. Madison, however, seems more to have sincerely believed that both for the sake of government and the sake of religion, they should be separated. Religion has a horrible track record when it comes to coozying up to powers of the world. And rational government often fails in the face of ideologically-driven wars and policies emerging from unquestioned religious belief systems.
So the government would not formally establish a State Church as in England or german principalities.
The other clause states that the government will not impede the free expression of one's religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not endanger the livelihood of others (i.e. human sacrifice).
Now those two clauses from time to time come into conflict. During the 19th century, Protestant ministers would routinely teach the Bible in public schools. Both in the North and South. The United States up until the later half of the 19th century was a predominantly white, Protestant country.
Then the waves of European immigration started and the move to the cities took over. Many Catholic immigrants came from Ireland, Germany, Italy. Orthodox Christians as well as Jews from Eastern Europe. A series of anti-immigrant WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) groups arose--think Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York--like the Know-Nothings (not that they knew-nothing, they Catholics knew-nothing). Al Smith was defeated by Herbert Hoover based primarily on Hoover's platform: Smith will build a bridge to the Papacy.
Catholic schools began so that Catholics would not be subjected to Protestant theology in public schools. So the Catholics and Jews ghettoized themselves with their own schools, neighborhoods, sports team, and social clubs. And prayer-Biblical study from an evangelical Protestant point of view was still the rule of the day in public institutions.
Fast foward to the 50s/60s. The Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation was illegal.
Then the Warren Court made a series of decisions over the next decade or so--banning school prayer and the study of the Bible in public institutions. The Democratic Party had shifted from being the New Deal Democrats--a combination of social progressives, unionized workers in the North, and Southern whites--to the JFK elite-New England liberals. The Democrats lost the Southern White vote with de-segregation, support for civil rights, and the banning of school prayer.
So what are the Evangelicals' claims on this subject. The Warren Court had argued that prayer in school violated the establishment clause--that praying to God (and especially to Jesus Christ) was an obvious signal that the government was establishing one religion (Christianity, and usually one form of Christianity, evangelical-reformed-Baptist) as the de facto state religion.
This issue came to a head with the widespread rejection of so-called traditional values by the 60s generation, particularly their rejection of WASP 1950s Ozzie and Harriet Eisenhower America.
The Evangelicals typically counter that their rights under the free expression clause are violated by the banning of school prayer.
Now, interesting to note that both the liberal (Warren Court) and conservative (evangelical) are right in what they argue. Prayer in school to God/Jesus Christ does violate the establishment clause, particularly after large minority segments exist in this country who do not define themselves or desire their children to be taught Judeo-Christian notions of divinity. AND the free expression of religion which is certainly not threatening to the life and limb of non-believers is being violated by banning school prayer.
Feldman's article rightly points out that Sandra Day O'Connor, the swing vote of the Supreme Court over the last 15 years, got it backwards. She voted for support for religious institutions--the office of faith-based ministries, tax credits for children to attend Catholic parochial schools--and against free expression of religious beliefs.
So what happens when the establishment and free exercise clause seem to be in conflict? The easiest way it would seem to parse the issue would be something like the following. The Government does not have a right to establish a religion as official in this country--no one running for office of any kind must pass a religious test--nor do they have the right to prevent public grounds from being used for religious observance. With the proviso that those observances do not threaten minority citizens. Now it is probably true that an upsurge in evangelical Bible-thumping would lead to more name-calling and verbal abuse for Jewish, gay, secular, Hindu, Muslim children. This is a sad fact. Schools could be places where instead children are taught civility and the healthy respect for religious difference that is the great hertiage of the United States--incidentally and unfortunately, the liberal groups like the ACLU have gone so far out there they decry the very educational structures that would help, like teaching "civics" and "moral training" in the classroom because that is an enfringement of people's rights. Sadly their rights are going to be much more infringed by learning nothing of respect for other groups in public school.
So, people have a right to use public grounds for prayer/Biblical study. However, to protect the (non)establishment clause, these religious ceremonies could not take place during school hours. If after school a bunch of kids want to go out on the football field and pray to Jesus, then that is their right. If that offends non-Christians, then they are free to have their own religious or non-religious ceremonies as well. On the baseball diamond if the football field is already occupied. The schools would not be preventing any religious observance. Now, in many cases schoolboards might make rules that would subterfugely put pressure against a Muslim or Hindu or Pagan religious ceremony. But that is where they could be called to the carpet. There would be no more excuse about the feds preventing their religion--they would be held to task. The right to school prayer would come at the cost of all forms of prayer or even anti-prayer if you will.
That is America. Being a minority in this country should mean that one's basic rights at protected--that is why we live in a republic thank God, not a democracy. In a pure democracy, in this country, that was just based on the will of the people, many parts of the Constitution would be overturned, particuarly the non-establishment of an official religion--but not that your point of view is always going to be given equal weight (in terms of quantity).
So the evangelicals, as holders (of some) of the wisdom of the underside, are right that we are neglecting are heritage, our greatness in preventing public forms of worship. They are wrong in their assertion that this country was founded on Christianity. Or Judeo-Christian notions. They cetainly played an influence. But remember the Founding Fathers were Deists. They were elite liberal--in the clasical modern sense not the postmodern sense. Alexander Hamilton today would be a moderate Republican. Then he was a liberal, by his day's standards. Jefferson made a version of the Gospels that took out all of the miraculous healings, the resurrection, and so on, and left only the parables and teaching episodes of Jesus. Those were the "rational" elements that were worth keeping. It was that man who wrote, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Not an evangelical Bible-believer. A Rational, Deistic, Architect, not the God of Biblical Revelation.
The mistaken notion that this was a Judeo-Christian nation from the start is the truth of the lower classes of our country. They typically have been such, and see the rest of the world through their (mistaken) lense. Movements like Mormonism managed to connected American Manifest Destiny political ideology with Biblical notions of a chosen people. They gave voice to the oucast from the (classical) liberal Northeast elite. Or the Baptist-Evangelical reference to America as the New Promised Land. They suffer because their religion is tied into American patriotism, and yet our government does not officially support--in some ways unofficially sure, but not ever officially. And some officially seek to undermine such a notion.
They are betwixt and between--they suffer so much in that no man's land. But that is their choice if they are willing to choose not to evolve. That is their choice (free expression) to hold such a fundamenatlist ethnocentric view. It is their choice to suffer the consequences of never being connected (non-establishment clause). The tension between those exists to create the negation of their current worldview, so they can transform to a higher plane. Most sadly choose not to, or have no reference or understanding as to that choice.
Because they are wrong about this country being Judeo-Christian in its origins, then the prayers/ceremonies can not take place, in my mind, during the time of school. That would violate the establishment clause.
On a sidenote: The issue over the word "God" in the Pledge of Alleigance has basically no relevance here. One: no one has to say the Pledge. Two: Nobody it takes it seriously. Some off-hand reference to God in the Pledge means about nothing to no one.
The other truth that the Evangelicals point to--although their reasons for holding it and what is to be done about are wrong--is that these things were handled at the judicial level and should have been handled at the legislative level. Or a combination of the two. The Judiciary striking down unconstitutional measures (the violation of the establishment clause) while the Legislature simultaneously builds up laws to bolster the free expression clause, creating a healthy environment in the newly deconstructed one. Otherwise a void remains. The Warren Court on a number of issues struck down oppressive policies in our country, but did not establishment positive measures in its place.
This later point will be discussed in greater detail in the next installation--abortion.
posted by CJ Smith @ 8:01 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
are you serious?
Post a Comment
<< Home