I’ve heard the arguments. They are compelling and reasonable. We cannot endorse one religion unless we are willing to endorse them all. Hence, can you imagine the front lawn of City Hall covered with thirty different religious symbols and displays during the Winter Solstice season?—the holiday I call Christmas.
How about removing all postings of the Ten Commandments from all court houses throughout the country—including the Ten Commandments engraved in stone above the United States Supreme Court. We could do this. However, let’s consider the civility of this action.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But does this amendment mean that there can be no expression of faith in the public square? My reading does not render that interpretation. Nor do I think our forefathers read the amendment that way. Based on these words we see that the constitution forbids the government from establishing a national religion as well as from prohibiting us from freely exercising our religion.
Our forefathers were not afraid of the role and significance of faith—unlike the many secularists in today’s culture. Consider the fact that Moses is included among the great lawgivers in the sculpture relief on the east portico of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, each Supreme Court Session begins with the invocation, "God save the United States and this honorable court."
Okay, so you say, “that’s just tradition…” Well, that’s just my point. Certain traditions and “religious” symbols simply reflect our heritage as a nation. Remembering heritage is imperative—whether good or bad. That’s why we have museums that remind us of American slavery. It’s also why some folks want to maintain their confederate flag. It’s our roots…and it has molded us into who we are today.
Today, however, we have secular humanists who insist that anything remotely sacred or religious is somehow an imposition on their right to not be religious. I contend that their push to secularize everything is an imposition on my right to be “religious.”
Now Secular Humanists do not consider themselves an organized religion but rather an organized philosophical system—primarily because there is no deity-worship involved. Yet one definition of religion according to the American Heritage Dictionary is, “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”
Thus, we can safely say that religion is not confined to a weekly liturgy or worship of a deity. The highly organized set of principles laid out in the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles,” is akin to one’s “Statement of Faith” posted in the halls of any given religious institution.
The definition of secularism is “the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education, yet the United States Constitution does not require such a separate and “secular” government. It only requires that the government not establish a national religion. However, if the precedent set by recent court rulings continues and all levels of government are forced to enforce these rulings, I fear we will have established a national religion—a national religion of Secular Humanism.
My question to the secular humanist is this: Just how is one expected to exclude religious considerations from civil affairs and public education when the very individuals involved in civil affairs and public education are people of faith—among others? The laws and institutions of the United States reflect the people of the United States. And most people in this country have a core religious faith from which they cannot simply separate themselves nor ignore when forming opinions and making decisions.
My words to the secular humanist are these: a nation truly free of a national religion would allow free discusion of religion in a school setting--or Bible, Torah or Koran reading during a student's "free reading time" as long as it was initiated by the student and not the teacher. In homogeneous communities, if a student wants to offer a prayer and no one dissents, it should be allowed. The point is not to force a particular religion on anyone—nor to prevent the free expression thereof. However, it appears as though America is headed toward the prohibition of all forms of religious expression.
Once we come to the point where one can be jailed, fined, disciplined or reprimanded for expressing their religious beliefs in public or private setting, our nation has seriously veered from the constitution. In an attempt to erect a “wall of seperation between church and state” the nation will have wrongly constructed an even larger wall of Secular Humanism to prohibit the inclusion and participation of people of faith.
The United States is one nation of many people of many religions and ideologies. Individuals in our public institutions, schools and workplaces should all be allowed to freely express or not express themselves in public or private without fear of reprimand.
To expect government to adopt the secular humanist position is not only unconstitutional but unrealistic. For as long as there are people of faith, there will be expressions of faith both in the public and private sector. America is a pluralistic society with Judeo-Christian roots. Accept it. America should not be forced to deny or ignore its heritage.
Copyright ©2005 by Anita S. Lane
Visit the Keeping Family First Website for Moms!
No comments:
Post a Comment