At It Again
The Texas House has given preliminary approval to require all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments in an 88-49 vote. Of course, "But ... but ... separation of church and state!" Find that in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson mentioned it, but his concern wasn't keeping the church out of the state, but the state out of the church. And, consider ... the Ten Commandments isn't "church" -- it's Jewish. More to the point, it's almost entirely universal. I, for one, wouldn't mind reminding school children "Thou shalt not kill" since America is fine with killing when it suits them (as in unborn children) ... and then complaining about school shootings.
Apologies
An American citizen was arrested for attempting to destroy the Branch Office of the US. Embassy in Tel Aviv because of his antisemitic hate. To the world, we say, "Sorry. Blame the Left." Somehow, hating whites and loving blacks, hating Jews and loving Palestinians, hating the lives of the unborn while loving "choice" all equate to "fair and equal" in the eyes of some people.
Do What I Say
A "pastor" in Atlanta is leading a boycott of Target ... for eliminating DEI principles and failing to invest in "black-owned banks, businesses and education." "You can do business, but you will do it the way we demand, because that's what Jesus would do." Look it up ... 3 Peter 5:12. Why does it have to be a pastor?
Celebrating Government Spending
Elon Musk is stepping down from his position in the Trump administration ... as was planned from the beginning. Despite his enthusiasm and oversteps, he failed to reach his goals, but he's ending because "my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end." And the loudest Left cheers because it there's anything we know, it's that the government must not spend less. In a parallel story, the IRS is releasing a new simplified tax form for next year. Line 1: How much did you make? Line 2: Send it in.
Your Best Source for Fake News
Perfectly on point, the Bee reports that Elon Musk is leaving his job of creating a more efficient government for the much easier job of sending humans to Mars. is that even a joke? Just for fun (because I like Calvin and Hobbes), there's a story about a guy who got 90% of his advanced vocabulary from ... Calvin and Hobbes. (If you're familiar with the comic strip, you get it.) Finally, a twofer. With Trump's ban on international students at Harvard (actual story), American Harvard students are going to have to figure out who to cheat off of now, and Harvard is going to have to start accepting students from Ohio. Ouch!
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
At It Again
ReplyDeleteI made a similar argument when Louisiana did it. No matter what religion or non-religion you are, the Ten Commandments are fitting for everyone, even the first 4. But I guess, how dare we wish to promote moral activity from our children.
Apologies
I mean, it makes sense. Haters of America have been helping to fund our colleges and universities for decades in order to help produce these types of people.
Do What I Say
It's funny because I was already boycotting Target because of their promotion of transgenderism. Just goes to show, businesses should focus on business, not social and political activism. Once you do that, you end up in a no-win situation.
Celebrating Government Spending
It's a shame what the Left has done in response to DOGE. The side of peace and compassion shows themselves as not, often. Hopefully he can get a modicum of peace now, but I doubt it because the Left's anger burns long.
I see a lot of problems with posting the “Ten Commandments” in public schools--not the least of which is that it endorses and/or promotes one religion--in this case, the Judeo-Christian faith--in the public school system, which violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the Constitution’s First Amendment. If quotations from Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5 are allowed to be posted, then passages from the sacred scriptures of other faiths like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., must also be permitted and likewise presented as “truth for living.” Do we really want that? There could be objections with the language of the proposed poster right from the first line: “I am the Lord thy God.” Many people in a pluralistic society such as ours would properly object, “No, the Abrahamic Lord-God is not my God. You are forgetting my right to hold a different faith from you (or none at all). Your creed is not my creed.” Even if deemed appropriate for display in a parochial school (Christian or Jewish), then these questions arise: Which version of the Bible to quote--the King James Version? The Message? The New World Translation? The original Jewish writings? List them as Protestants know them, or as Catholics do? (There is a difference.) Retain the archaic language of “thee’s, thou’s, and thy’s,” or make it more understandable to 21st century students? Provide an explanation of the context of these instructions for the Jews? What if the government wants to fiddle with the listing, i.e. “let’s leave this one out” or “we should change the wording here,” etc.--then we would see the State interfering with the Church in a way it has been forbidden to do.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion: Although this proposal reflects commendable intentions--at least to me, a Christian--to my mind, it’s not a trouble-free proposal when thought through.
It is commonly argued that it violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but ... in fact ... i don't think so. It certainly doesn't push Christianity because it's not the basis of Christianity. It promotes a moral view but not even Judaism is built on the 10 Commandments. The "separation of church and state" idea is a myth. The idea of the First Amendment was to protect church from state, not to remove it entirely from government. It does promote a view that there is a God, but that includes nearly every religion. It is certainly not a trouble-free proposal, but what is? So ... obviously i respectfully disagree. シ
DeleteIt’s certainly fine with me if we respectfully disagree, but do you at least see the problems I pointed out? To be clear: I’m all for teaching kids right and wrong but not that way. The proposal is a simplistic can of worms.
DeleteI had these thoughts in response to your comment: Government schools cannot promote a particular religion--not even one we view as virtually “universal”--because none is. Belief in the God of the “Ten Commandments”--derived from the Judeo-Christian scriptures--is not held by all religions, only Judeo-Christian ones. I also think it is important to remember that “protecting the church from the state” was intended to work both ways--a goal sought in part through the new mandate that a particular religious affiliation (i.e. Anglicanism, Congregationalism) would not henceforth be required to hold office in the new nation, in an effort to eliminate all vestiges of a state-sponsored religion (with which the founding fathers were all-too familiar as British subjects). This would enable Jews, Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, etc., to freely serve in the new government without prejudice (as per “no religious test shall ever be required….”) and also guaranteed that no religion would wield power upon the new government. I know this was a chief matter for both Jefferson and Madison and was in clear view during the creation of the Constitutional Amendments.
There is a difference between posting the Ten Commandments for all to see, and enforcing a particular religion. I don't even think I've heard anyone even trying to enforce the Ten Commandments to be obeyed, only that they be posted. I can't think of one of them that other religions wouldn't actually agree with if applied to their own beliefs. Even an atheist shouldn't have a problem, because they certainly have no other god before theirs, it just happens to be them.
DeleteAs for the separation of church and state to prevent specific religious beliefs to be required to hold office, that is specifically for federal office. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, many states did have religious requirements to hold office. Only federal offices were to be exempt.
In regards to other religious writings being posted, I don't really have a fear of that for a few reasons. One, the majority of people do still identify as some flavor of Christian. Two, I know of no non Christian-affiliated religion that evangelizes like Christianity does, and thus wouldn't even want to push to post anything. Three, if they did, they'd have to be just as plain and universal as the Ten Commandments. Fourth, nobody is going to be saying you need to believe in these things in order to be educated here. Finally, of they did, I think it would be better for people to have interactions with other religious teachings in order to better flesh out their own. Too many children leave their parents religion because they have no interaction with other faiths and thus have no answers for how they should hold to their own when they encounter differences.
Personally, I think the Ten Commandments shouldn't be offensive to anyone if they have it 2 seconds of thought. If they could ever be taken out of the context of the Bible, there should be no reason anyone should have a problem with them.
I guess I'm a bit confused by the effort put into posting the 10 commandments in classrooms. When I see all sorts of evidence of classroom violence and utter failure of the education system to produce graduates that can read, write, and do basic math, I wonder what the point is.
DeleteI have no objection to them being posted, but I question whether there are better goals to shoot for.
I rather agree with you, Craig. Frankly, I think the proposal is silly--essentially grasping at straws. It also strikes me as hypocritical for public schools to post a list of authoritative “Thou shalt nots” while leaving God out of the general curriculum (not to mention their philosophy of education), as they do. It’s just “lip service,” in my mind.
DeleteTwo thoughts here. First, since the current message offered in schools without restriction or control is the world's values, I would kind of like another option offered, too, not because posting it will make its own difference, but because it gives God a presence. Second, I am of the opinion that God's Word doesn't come back void. If the Holy Spirit were to use it to convict a school kid of sin, I'd be in favor.
DeleteLorna, thanks.
DeleteStan, that's why I don't have a problem with it being there. More with the vast amount of effort being expended. I guess the real question is what percentage of the students will be literate enough to read them.
Of course, since public schools are under governmental control (local, state, or federal), it makes sense that they would reflect the world’s values, as you say; unfortunately, I feel that the powers-to-be are committed to keeping it that way. But who can say how God will work?
DeleteOne clarification: I meant no disrespect to the Ten Commandments as quotations from Scripture--just towards the uninspired (no pun intended) way the secular schools would comply with such a requirement. Again, who knows? Maybe some unchurched public-school student, employee, or visitor will remember seeing “I am the Lord thy God” on a poster the way I remember “our Father, which art in Heaven…” from first grade.
The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It isn't establishing a religion to post the 10Cs. What they wanted to prevent was a denomination being invented, like England invented the Anglican Church to separate from Roman Catholicism. But Christianity was recognized as the faith of the founding fathers. Christianity in general was the accepted faith, just not any one particular denomination. Read the Federalist Papers and you'd see that was their concern---that the government would not establish a national denomination.
ReplyDeleteNotice there is nothing in the amendment about not "enforcing" a religion.
There was a case about Islam early in our history and the court said Islam was not to be countenanced--Because they KNEW the dangers of Islam. Oh, if we just remembered that!
Even if I am the only commenter here who sees a clear violation (based, apparently, on a different understanding of U.S. history), I am certain I am not in the minority in general. And I feel that all my original points of objection still stand. (A perfect illustration: In reading online about this, I found a report of a lawsuit filed in Louisiana by “clergy and members of the Catholic, Jewish, and other faiths who object to the use of a Protestant King James Bible version of the Ten Commandments that ‘imposes a set of distinct religious norms on Louisiana’s public-school children.’” Just one of the issues I mentioned above.) In any event, I believe that the argument is moot, as this proposal will likely see little success (beyond perhaps a handful of “Bible Belt” states).
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Mine is a minority opinion ... even though Christianity was boldly held in the government up into the 1950's ... in "direct opposition" to the Constitution. I believe the current view that all religion needs to be kept out of government is the product of 60 years of attack on Christianity in the public square, and earlier generations had no problem with it.
DeleteYou said earlier that the belief in one God was only a Judeo_Christian belief, but Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, and more are all monotheistic. Other religions (e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, etc.) have comparable laws or principles to the 10 Commandments. In fact, a recent survey suggested that most people consider the 10 commandments "important principles to live by." On the other hand, the 10 commandments do nothing to establish Christianity (saved by grace through faith in the risen Savior).
A small correction: I wrote, “Belief in the God of the ‘Ten Commandments’--derived from the Judeo-Christian scriptures--is not held by all religions, only Judeo-Christian ones.” A bit different in meaning from how you quoted me. (I do know there are other monotheistic faiths beside Judaism and Christianity.)
DeleteI would agree with the “60 years” reference, as I distinctly remember hearing the Lord’s Prayer (the Protestant version) recited every day in my first-grade NJ public-school classroom (1961); then that was abolished in 1962, of course (and Bible readings in 1963). But I am also aware that in recent decades, our nation has seen many new immigrants from countries and cultures that are not predominantly Christian (the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc.), so it has become much more pluralistic. I don’t see an “attack on Christianity in the public square” as much as a proper recognition that this is not a Christian nation and that other (non-Christian) faiths are also represented in our citizenry. (I believe that this is what was in the minds of Jefferson, Madison, and the others.)
I only call it an attack on Christianity because Christ promised we would be hated like He was.
DeleteWell, yes, there is that (and I believe we Christians are hyper-sensitive to it). I also think that some of what might feel like “hate” is actually the friction of living in that public square with other people who also believe that their views are “the Truth” and should prevail. Clearly, tolerance is practiced by some people but not by others.
DeleteIt used to be a Christian nation and was intended that way by the founders. The fact that this nation has left Christ is demonstrated by the hate against Christians, the LGBTQ agenda, rampant sexual immorality, the lawlessness of the LEFT, etc.
ReplyDeleteAgain, my studies have led me to understand our nation’s history differently. Rather than being “a Christian nation” at any point in its development or existence (beyond the early hopes of the Puritans for a “city upon a hill” or William Penn for a “Holy Experiment”), the U.S.A. is of the world and naturally reflects that in all the ways you mentioned (and more).
DeleteA thorough study of what the founders wrote shows they expected this to be a Christian nation, and that is a fact rather than a matter of interpretation.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I know you share my strong interest in American history. My special area of interest is the Colonial era--particularly the settlement and development of the North American regions that became the states, including the religious backgrounds, practices, and influences of the various people groups in those regions. Throughout the ~175 years during which the various “founders” were forming what would become the new nation, much discussion took place by people of various persuasions--ideas that subsequently influenced the formation of the founding documents and the branches of the new federal government. Regardless of personal views of individual founders who might have desired (or “expected”) the establishment of “a Christian nation” (however that could be interpreted for the time period), the laws that became binding for the United States of America did not dictate a religious identity--and, in fact, they forbid it (as was made clear in the stipulation by Congress you mentioned above, among others). While it might be true that some founders desired “a Christian nation” and even wrote about that, as you asserted, I cannot agree that all did; nor were the wishes of those arguing for it in fact honored.
DeleteI found a helpful summary of this topic here: https://www.str.org/w/the-faith-of-our-fathers
It seems like Lorna and Greg are talking about two different things. Lorna is right in that the Founders didn't want this to be a Christian nation by rule of law, but Greg is right that this was a Christian nation by the populace. The Founders didn't want what most of Europe had with the different churches enforcing their religious convictions in a legal way, but they also believed that this system of government was unsuited for anything but a Christian polity. And this has proven true all over the world every time America has tried to enforce Democracy on any non-Christian populace, it has failed.
ReplyDeleteGood catch, David, although I have addressed both aspects you mention in my comments: (1) Our nation’s founding documents allow for individual religious freedom and noninterference by the government and forbid promotion of any one faith over the others; and (2) While our population has indeed been mostly “Christian” since the first Europeans arrived here, it has become more pluralistic in recent decades, so Christians’ expectations of being the “favored faith” would need revision in modern times.
DeleteI would argue that pluralism has not been a benefit for our country. I don't believe we should enforce a particular religion by rule of law, I do think the encouragement of Christianity by rule of law is beneficial to the country and to individuals. Because of this belief that the state shouldn't encourage any particular religion, we believe all religions are equally valid. But there are too many grave differences between Christian ethics and other religions to allow this religious parity to continue.
DeleteThis is my understanding as well. The founders understood that they could craft laws based on the Christian populace, without establishing a theocracy. They believed that people with a shared Christian heritage and faith would act in certain ways and designed the founding documents to reflect that. It seems clear that they intended a secular nation, founded Christian principles and designed for a Christian populace. Is that technically a "Christian nation"?
DeleteDavid, of course you are right that Christianity is superior to all else. But since we can’t force the non-Christians out of the country, I think we must pray that God will enable us to continue to spread the Christian faith in our neighborhoods within the current parameters of the law and pray for that Christian populace to grow.
DeleteCraig, I think it’s not technically “a Christian nation,” but it’s just short of it--and as close to being one as it can be under our current Constitution. I think we should be very grateful to God for that!
Lorna, at one time I had a great book examining the Federalist Papers, writings by numerous founding fathers, and even court proceedings into the early 1800s. Over and over it was stated we had a Christian nation, not an atheist nation or a Muslim nation. No argued for a denomination. Even one court in a suit about Islam made a statement about this being a Christian nation and "Muhammadism" was not to be countenanced. I gave that book away several years ago and don't even remember the title, but I wish I still had it.
ReplyDeleteI too have been thinning out my home library (it’s a bit of “dostadning,” I think). Yesterday, I wanted to consult my copy of A More Perfect Union: The Making of the United States Constitution (by William Peters) for a comment at this thread and could not find the book on my shelves. Then I remembered that I read it during the 2020 shutdown and then donated it. I am already missing books I got rid of!
DeleteDavid, You note "Greg" but I think you mean "Glenn."
ReplyDeleteStan, I see an interesting quote from John Adams at the top of your blog’s sidebar (under Thoughts); I found its source at the National Archives (“From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798”). Since his words relate so well to this discussion, I am curious if that quote offers any additional insights, in your opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn 1945, President Harry Truman gave his annual Christmas Eve speech. He espoused Christian values ... by name. The early fathers of our nation believed Christian values were the only way a nation could survive. In fact, if you read the writings in those days, when they mention "religion," it is invariably a reference to Christianity. But we're far removed from that now and "the ministry of truth" (from Orwell's 1984) has seen to it that we can't even see it anymore.
DeleteThanks for your reply. I am sure that Adams’ words ring true. It is inspiring to me--as a Christian and a history buff--that our nation had that foundation (at least once the Europeans arrived) and a strong Christian presence ever since. This would be a very different place otherwise. Still, we all know the limitations built into the laws and also how much things have indeed changed since, say, 1945. I am sure that, following the wartime events, Truman greatly appreciated those Christian values after seeing the horrific results of the Godless ideologies that had been battling for power in Europe. It certainly would lead one to proclaim, “God bless America”--both then and now!
Delete