The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups, like the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, have nothing on me. I at least recognize the implications of their efforts to eradicate from the public square any vestige of Christian symbolism or influence. I wonder if the more liberal among us are similarly aware.
An anecdote will help elucidate what I mean. Two winters ago, while placing postage stamps on Christmas cards in an otherwise vacant post office lobby, I heard from behind the service desk a very loud outburst.
“Jesus Christ!” shouted a man, a US postal clerk, from behind the counter.
I turned to look at what might be causing such consternation. It seems there was some sort of problem with postages on sundry packages.
As I left that postal facility, descending its steps and turning to cross its lawn, I was struck with something more philosophical than one usually considers during simple chores. It went something like this:
When the postal clerk shouted the name of the Christian deity, he was doing one of three things. He was either praying aloud, invoking the name of Christ for intervention. Or he was blaspheming, profaning the Name billions of Christians hold dear, invoking it as a curse. As for the third option, I will mention that in a moment.
How is it that it is against the law, or at least decency, for a Christian crèche to be erected on the lawn of a federal post office, and yet it is not wrong for a federal employee to either pray or defile the name of Jesus Christ, all while in a federal uniform, on federal property, on the federal dollar? Is not the employee’s act a breach in the wall between church and state? And if we dismiss the employee’s act not as prayer but as swearing, and somehow tolerable, how does the state defend its right to permit the profanation of Christianity on state property and yet not the promotion of it? Is the employee’s speech protected by the Constitution?
And if the US Postal Service is not per se federal, then what about other federal officials in other federal offices? Are they entitled to besmirch Christianity with the oft-heard “Jesus Christ?” How so?
The third option, that the federal employee was merely using a name that is so grossly misused in the public square that it has become a completely secular expression, begs several questions. Who decides that something is completely secular; and is not meant as a religious slur? The state? And if it is the case that Jesus Christ’s name has a secular value as an expression of disgust, how is it that a crèche is exempt from possessing a secular value, such as “renewal,” or “humble beginnings are oft advantageous,” or “sacrifice for the sake of one’s fellow citizens is noble"? Surely these lessons are inherently trans-religious, readily secular, and could be easily commended and protected by the state. In fact, such values are part of the very mythology of the American Dream. How is it that promoting these values with a crèche is not constitutionally protected?
So, then, the legal implications are quite important for the secularist. If there is no secular but only a religious value to Jesus Christ’s name, then of course, all federal and state employees, and all those receiving state funds, who use this name, must cease and desist. This would include teachers, politicians, military, fire and police personnel; and those novelists, playwrights, poets and filmmakers who receive federal grants.
Moreover, it could be argued that the US postal service has no business printing religious postage stamps of any kind, primarily those promoting Christianity, nor should federal employees be utilized for the shipping and delivery of religious gift packages during holy days. All that should be left to the private sector. (Of course, the financial impact of this would be grotesque.)
Really, if the secularists are going to secularize, by all means let them go all the way. But how many of us are willing to live in such a world? For this is not a brave new world the secularists are conjuring, but a cowardly old one.
Let’s fight them with all we have.
Peace!
Bill Gnade
†[Please note, dear reader, that only an hour-and-a-half ago I wrote that today would be an off day for me; that my essay was not (nor would be) issue-driven. Let me inform you, then, that there are TWO posts today, the first being a (barely) vulnerable piece about writing for you on a nearly daily basis.
THIS post, however, is as immediate as one can create. Moments ago I read two amazing news items, first, that the US Supreme Court, in agreement with the ACLU, decided 5-4 that the posting of the Ten Commandments in courthouses was an unconstitutional act. Then, I read that, in a separate decision, the same court said it was OK for religious displays on government property.
I will not venture to examine the nuances of these decisions at the moment. Suffice it to say that I have already written a response to the whole separation of church and state issue, and due to the urgency of the moment, which is a truly momentous occasion in American jurisprudence and culture, I share it with you now. Please read my essay above titled, "No More Swearing, Please!" Mull it over. It's important. Really. Send it to the highest places.]
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Separation of Church and State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Separation of Church and State. Show all posts
Monday, June 27, 2005
Friday, April 29, 2005
My prediction was wrong, in part
©Bill Gnade/2005
OK. So I am not prescient. A week has passed and I did not receive, at least in this weekly news cycle, a single rebuttal regarding my claims that the religious left is bent on creating its own theocracy in America (see The Religious Left Is No Less Threatening posted below). Particularly, my expectation that Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and its association (UUA) would assault me in defense of their unarguable intrusion into politics has not come to pass. But I am bold to say: the silence is deafening.
Before the reader concludes that I am claiming an undue influence on local affairs, perhaps an explanation is in order. The regional Unitarian society in southern NH is large, vociferous, reactionary, and aggressive. There is no want of political activism in the hearts of this bunch, nor is there any lack of stridency. Thus, when I suggest that this group's silence is deafening, I do so believing that its silence is politically deliberate. There is no doubt the Unitarians saw and read my commentary. They hardly miss a trick. Besides, the editor of the paper which printed my letter is a Unitarian, as is her family.
What do we know about the separation of Church and State? I, at least, know that it is not possible. Religion and politics are inextricably entwined. There will never be, nor can there ever be, a secular state.
But let us assume that there is a possibility of secularism. Let us further stipulate that the religious right is jamming Christian theocratic polity down America's throat. And let us stipulate, for sheer fun, that the Democrats are here to protect us from theocracy, as they so unflinchingly claim.
Hear what the head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, had to say about the wonderful secular tent under which he presides:
I implore anyone, anywhere, to find an analogous leader in the Republican National Committee that has spoken so theocratically.
Right after the 2004 General Election, members of the Democratic Party were citing New Testament passages in radio and TV appearances. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Al Sharpton, John Kerry, Jesse Jackson - each of them quoted scripture, and how that sacred writ was most obediently followed by their holy party.
Unitarians, interestingly enough, almost called for a national day of mourning after Bush won the election. In fact, the UUA president William Sinkford insisted that his fellow UUs allow themselves only eight days to mourn before getting on with life.
Locally, the Peterborough (NH) Unitarian Society posted on its wayside pulpit (the sign in front of a church) for its traditional Election Day sermon: "Post-Election Healing." That this sort of sackcloth and ashes mentality swept through the entire UUA community is indisputable, thus proving that the grief in that community was one of discovering that the UUs' hope for a liberal religious state had once again been thwarted.
Why the silence to my charges? Simple. It is politically expedient to the UUs not to draw attention to their hypocrisy. And, again, what is that hypocrisy? It is this: That the Unitarian Universalist Association and its member congregations are a Church committed to the religious ideal that religion should be separate from politics. That this irrationality is not highlighted more frequently in the media is startling and telling. It is the one of the most intellectually self-cancelling beliefs imaginable, and yet it is touted as sophisticated, nuanced and progressive.
In short, it is just plain dumb.
Contratimes
OK. So I am not prescient. A week has passed and I did not receive, at least in this weekly news cycle, a single rebuttal regarding my claims that the religious left is bent on creating its own theocracy in America (see The Religious Left Is No Less Threatening posted below). Particularly, my expectation that Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and its association (UUA) would assault me in defense of their unarguable intrusion into politics has not come to pass. But I am bold to say: the silence is deafening.
Before the reader concludes that I am claiming an undue influence on local affairs, perhaps an explanation is in order. The regional Unitarian society in southern NH is large, vociferous, reactionary, and aggressive. There is no want of political activism in the hearts of this bunch, nor is there any lack of stridency. Thus, when I suggest that this group's silence is deafening, I do so believing that its silence is politically deliberate. There is no doubt the Unitarians saw and read my commentary. They hardly miss a trick. Besides, the editor of the paper which printed my letter is a Unitarian, as is her family.
What do we know about the separation of Church and State? I, at least, know that it is not possible. Religion and politics are inextricably entwined. There will never be, nor can there ever be, a secular state.
But let us assume that there is a possibility of secularism. Let us further stipulate that the religious right is jamming Christian theocratic polity down America's throat. And let us stipulate, for sheer fun, that the Democrats are here to protect us from theocracy, as they so unflinchingly claim.
Hear what the head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, had to say about the wonderful secular tent under which he presides:
"We need to talk about Christian values and how they're Democratic values. Jesus taught to help the least among us. He spent his life reaching out to the disenfranchised. The Democratic Party is the party of that value, not the Republican Party."OK. So here we have the head of the DNC not only quoting Jesus, but telling us that it is the DNC, the alleged protectors of secularism, who are the true followers of Christ; and that Jesus' values are identical to the DNC's.
I implore anyone, anywhere, to find an analogous leader in the Republican National Committee that has spoken so theocratically.
Right after the 2004 General Election, members of the Democratic Party were citing New Testament passages in radio and TV appearances. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Al Sharpton, John Kerry, Jesse Jackson - each of them quoted scripture, and how that sacred writ was most obediently followed by their holy party.
Unitarians, interestingly enough, almost called for a national day of mourning after Bush won the election. In fact, the UUA president William Sinkford insisted that his fellow UUs allow themselves only eight days to mourn before getting on with life.
Locally, the Peterborough (NH) Unitarian Society posted on its wayside pulpit (the sign in front of a church) for its traditional Election Day sermon: "Post-Election Healing." That this sort of sackcloth and ashes mentality swept through the entire UUA community is indisputable, thus proving that the grief in that community was one of discovering that the UUs' hope for a liberal religious state had once again been thwarted.
Why the silence to my charges? Simple. It is politically expedient to the UUs not to draw attention to their hypocrisy. And, again, what is that hypocrisy? It is this: That the Unitarian Universalist Association and its member congregations are a Church committed to the religious ideal that religion should be separate from politics. That this irrationality is not highlighted more frequently in the media is startling and telling. It is the one of the most intellectually self-cancelling beliefs imaginable, and yet it is touted as sophisticated, nuanced and progressive.
In short, it is just plain dumb.
Contratimes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)