LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

in any of them, desiring to do unto all men as we desire all men should do unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State.”

      In the constitutional debates almost a century and a half later, the issue of religious freedom was still in the forefront. Those who preferred the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution felt the Constitution didn’t take religion seriously enough. They believed that society should be a “molder of character, rather than … a regulator of conduct.” Those who favored the Articles of Confederation believed that one religion should mold everyone into their same value system, and make laws to ensure that everyone behaved in a proper religious manner.

      The writers of the Constitution didn’t want to legislate religion. They said, “little democracies can no more be ruled by prayer than large ones.” They recognized that “Men act mainly from passion and interest.… The Constitution was deliberately and properly designed not to try to stifle or transform those motives … but to channel them in the direction of the public good.”14 The Founders saw that diversity was a protection against the coercion that can happen from majority rule.

      Thomas Jefferson said, “Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a censor … over such other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”15

      Jefferson was concerned about the government getting too involved in individual opinions and belief systems. He said, “… religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate … their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”16

      The writers of the Constitution didn’t want to legislate religion. They recognized that democracies cannot be ruled by prayer.

      Abraham Lincoln said, “Most governments have been based, practically, on the denial of equal rights of men … ours began, by affirming those rights.”17 There was a constant tension between developing a country toward a theocracy, with a state religion, or toward a democracy, where diversity was accepted. Throughout our history, the impulse toward religious diversity could not be stifled. If anything, persecution strengthened the dissent and fostered the drive toward the separation of church and state.

      Religious tolerance and diversity won, hoping to promote an open and accepting society.

      Challenges to Religious Freedom

      One of the clearest definitions between the Republican and Democratic values lies with the question of what part religion should play in a nation. The Democrats have had a fairly consistent policy to protect our religious freedoms. Republicans have, during some previous administrations, been protective of religious freedom. However, within the Republican Party is a group who wants to remove our freedom of religion. They are called the Dominionists, and they believe they are called to bring the government under the dominion of one particular brand of Christianity.

      The movement was begun by D. James Kennedy in Florida in 1959. (Kennedy also helped found the Moral Majority in 1979 along with the Rev. Jerry Falwell and others.) Sarah Palin is a Dominionist. Others who are Dominionists or have Dominionist leanings are Sam Brownback, Ralph Reed, Michelle Bachmann, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul.

      Kennedy said, “Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors—in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”18

      There is nothing wrong with bringing values into every aspect of our social and political life. That’s what we would want in a country that tries to serve the Good. But Kennedy was not talking about trying to make Christianity more prevalent in American political policy; rather, he promoted the sole use of the Dominionist brand of Christianity in making public policy—to the exclusion of not only other faiths, but also other interpretations of Christianity. This kind of exclusion and lack of protection for those unlike themselves is unconstitutional and unjust. I can imagine a prayer from a teacher or preacher that says, “Our Lord and Commander, we ask that you give your power to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria, and help them to overcome the enemy as we fight this great Crusade to lead us to truth.”

      I have heard prayers like this. To me, it’s a self-righteous prayer that makes nationalism a religion, rather than Christianity. It sees The Other as the enemy, rather than as The Neighbor, and it implies there will be hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of the enemy killed in the name of Jesus. It gives no room for my own Christian belief system as a pacifist.

      I can imagine another kind of prayer, that would be anathema to most conservatives, and perhaps millions of other Christians as well: “Our Ground of all being, Mother Earth, Father Sky, embrace our bodies and bring us into unity with you.” Although this may be a more loving prayer, it is so vague and unspecific that it would be meaningless to many. Yet, I have also heard prayers such as this.

      I can imagine nationalist prayers that would insist on our complete loyalty to our president, even when he is lying and covering up treasonous or illegal or immoral activities. Do we really want to be saying state-sponsored prayers that keep us from questioning Watergate? Or the Iran–Contra illegal deals? Or the prison abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay?

      What about classrooms where most of the students are not Christian but Jewish, or Buddhist or Muslim, or not religious at all? Does the majority rule? Will we all be asked to chant or will the non-Christians be forced to pray “in Jesus’ name”?

      Luis Palau, an evangelical preacher who is close to Billy Graham, bristles at the coarseness of these calls for absolute power. Palau is concerned about the ways this influential Republican Christian group belittles homosexuals, “effete” intellectuals and secular humanists. Palau says, “If we become called to Christ, we will build an effective nation through personal ethics. When you lead a life of purity, when you respect your wife and are good to your family, when you don’t waste money gambling and womanizing, you begin to work for better schools, for more protection and safety from your community. All change, historically, comes from the bottom up.”19

      Other evangelical Christians are equally concerned about this movement. Former Senator Mark Pryor, an evangelical Christian, says, “It is presumptuous of them [the Christian Right] to think they represent all Christians in America, even to say they represent all evangelical Christians.”20

      C. S. Lewis, the Protestant writer and theologian, said he believed in democracy “because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people [want democracy] for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people … who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true.… I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people.… The real reason for democracy is … Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”21

      Upholding True Conservative Values

      Jesus was both conservative and liberal. A conservative value that Jesus affirmed was the value of accountability and responsibility. Leaders are to rule justly, not be beholden to the rich, the powerful, or the influential. Justice transcends political parties.

      Both political parties have had a number of presidents, and members of Congress, who have lied, deceived, and tried to get away with breaking laws. It is a right and righteous act to hold these people accountable. In these circumstances, unfortunately, instead of truth-telling, blaming

Скачать книгу