Left2Right

Comments

Posted by: Jeremy Pierce

Here is one suggestion that I don't myself agree with (because I think a Christian nation is a contradiction in terms, given how Christianity presents itself in the New Testament). Still, I think it gets around your dilemma.

Posted by: Jeremy Pierce | Dec 22, 2004 10:56:51 AM

Posted by: Steve Shiffrin

The question can be looked at in a variety of ways. Presumably, a genuine Christian nation would be one that acted on Christian values. But Christians disagree on principles and policies. Consider abortion, capital punishment, and the role of government in caring for the poor. That there is disagreement need not mean that that Christianity is a meaningless tradition; it does mean that the nature of a Christian nation can depend upon which Christians are in power. Perhaps the question addresses what a nation run by evangelical Christians would be like. That would produce some predictable policies on abortion and homosexuality, but evangelical Christians are not homogeneous either (many resist faith based programs - including Fallwell and Robertson, as I recall). I assume the question is not historical. The U.S. was a Christian nation as were many states as was much of Europe. Perhaps the question is simply addressed to church/state relations. Even there, evangelical Christians are deeply divided. Consider the historic stance of Baptists in favor of considerable distance between church and state. Finally, would it make a difference if the United States declared itself a Christian nation and did nothing to act upon it? The declaration would mark some citizens as insiders and others as outsiders, encourage discrimination, and damage Christianity - just a few good reasons for the Establishment Clause.

Posted by: Steve Shiffrin | Dec 22, 2004 11:58:04 AM

Posted by: Andy

I love it when people forget there's a second part to the First Amendment.

Posted by: Andy | Dec 22, 2004 12:01:53 PM

Posted by: Andy

Addendum:

But it is cheap identity politics. Like people who want to make English the national language, people who want to establish a national religion suffer from some sort of malignant narcissism, a strange insecurity of the majority that only some aspiration of tyranny can explain.

I think we shouldn't ignore Christianity as history but the people from the Texas GOP want to include in the government as dogma. Take for example, the matter of the 10 Commandments. The Christian Fundamentalists will say that are laws are based on this Judeo Christian codification, but nowhere in our Constitution does it say that we can't diss God, or cheat on our spouses, or covet our neighbor's spouses.

And who believes that before Judaism people thought it was perfectly acceptable to kill one another? And did the practice stop after the Commandments?

The Commandments are a nice bit of history but hardly relevant to modern law. Why they should be anywhere near a courthouse is beyond my understanding.

Posted by: Andy | Dec 22, 2004 12:11:36 PM

Posted by: Josh Jasper

Well, I'd have to maintain a map of the US that listed states that I'd be wanted as a criminal in. The 2004 Texas Republican Platform still insists I ought to be a criminal in Texas.

On the other hand, we'd be sanctioning half the world, so that'd be interesting. I have no idea where we'd be buying oil from, given that every oil producing nation I can think of persecutes people based on religious beliefs. Perhaps we'd all end up a nation of EV drivers getting power from nuclear plants.

On the gripping hand, Henry Hyde once tried to bar Wiccans (Goddess based neo-pagans) from the US armed forces based on his Christian beliefs. So part of me expects that if we're going to let the evangelicals run things, there will be a sufficient amount of zealots among them to make life really hard for us practitioners of non-standard religions. I feel marginalized enough already by the current Republican party. Any neo-pagan I know of who's grown up in evangelist dominated areas has told me that those people are fairly likely to try and use the law to make life difficult. I personally know a neo-pagan school teacher who nearly lost her job because evangelists tried to run her out of town because they didn't want a "witch" teaching in a public school.

That's a lot worse than excluding atheists or agnostics in party platform language. It's real, and it affects people's lives deeply. Evangelists being in control of an area I'm living in scares the living heck out of me, because I have good reason to believe they'll try and regulate my life, restrict my behavior, and in some cases, make me into a criminal.

Posted by: Josh Jasper | Dec 22, 2004 12:14:50 PM

Posted by: Bernard Moon

As a conservative Christian, the platform stated by the Texas Republican Party concerns me in practical terms. C.S. Lewis in "The Screwtape Letters" warned not to be a "Christian with a cause" but simply a Christian. While Satan in the book wanted Christians to be deceived:

"Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the "cause," in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of Pacifism... Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing."

So I don't know about the personal faith of the Texas Republican Party leadership, but I would tend to think they are slightly off in their focus. They shouldn't be looking to establish a "Christian Nation" on earth, but keep their eyes on the nation in heaven. They lose focus as some of Jesus's disciples did when they asked to have a seat next to him in his kingdom, which they thought incorrectly would be an earthly one.

Also I don't believe you can legislate "morality" or a religious practice. It's not effective or pratical. This is why I'm against such measures as an enforcement of prayer in school. It would become ritualized and not meaningful to people.

Posted by: Bernard Moon | Dec 22, 2004 12:35:04 PM

Posted by: slarrow

What an illustrative dilemma this is. On the one hand, you don't want to think that Christian-nation types are posturing grandstanders, but on the other you don't want to rush to the conclusion that they're 21st century Torquemadas. Hmmm, my opponents, shallow or evil...however will I come up with a third position?

Okay, I admit it: that was snarky. But I simply find it incomprehensible that you struggle so mightily--and so openly--about your difficulty in moving past your stereotypes of Christians in the political scene.

About your dilemma: you're already well on your way to agreeing with and understanding several of the positions that Political Christians (for lack of a better handle) take. Your difficulty lies in your failure to recognize that there are real, committed opponents to several of those positions. There are people out there who want blanket exclusions of religion (or sometimes mere Christianity) from public or government settings. They make the unreasonable (and unconstitutional) demand that private religious belief may not spill over into public lives. There are organizations with sufficient financing to cow little towns and businesses into submission over including an ichthus on a city seal, saying a prayer at a graduation, or putting a Nativity scene in the public park. Attempts by Political Christians to consider this a Christian nation is not to mandate nationwide lip service but rather to set up a bulwark against these types of narrowly-focused forces.

In other words, you mistake the nature of the motivation that encourages Political Christians to declare this a Christian nation. It is not an offensive manuever, it is a defensive one. It is a reaction against attempts by some to disqualify Christian involvement in public policy simply because it is Christian, and it didn't used to be this way. To claim this is a Christian nation is to expose those often well-financed and professionally loudspoken opponents as petty tyrants who would use intimidation and illicit power grabs to force the majority to do the minority's will.

So here's the answer to your dilemma: think of those espousing that this be a Christian nation as people just like you who don't want to be told they can't participate in public life because of the nature of their belief, who will not accede in being treated as losers when they've won, who will not accept they cannot say they're right just because there are competing beliefs, and who will not accept "keep it to yourself" as a legitimate shackle. Once you get past this curious characterization of yours, I think you'll find the actual policy questions of Political Christians work much like any other list of policy questions by any other group.

Good grief, Professor Herzog, we're not aliens!

Posted by: slarrow | Dec 22, 2004 12:40:28 PM

Posted by: AlanC9

Can someone please explain how both religious people and secular people manage to feel they're on the defensive simultaneously?

Posted by: AlanC9 | Dec 22, 2004 12:52:32 PM

Posted by: Josh Jasper

There's a large chunk of Red State America that, when you move into a new town, one of the first questions you get asked is "What church do you go to?". Try answering "I'm an athiest" and see how unpopular you become all of a sudden.

As an urban blue state resident, the idea that my religious practises, or lack thereof should matter to anyone is rather alien.

In that sense, a lot of you are aliens. Not in how you vote, but in how you interact with each other, and how you treat us.

You claim you've "won". As far as I can tell, that means a country where I'm not welcome.

Posted by: Josh Jasper | Dec 22, 2004 12:52:41 PM

Posted by: Jeff

As an agnostic conservative, I perhaps have no dog in this particular fight.

Nor am I particularly enthralled with an affirmation that the US is a "Christian" nation since there are quite a few members of the nation that are not Christian.

It is historically true that Western culture fostered democratic government and grew out of a Judeo-Christian matrix. There should be no dispute about acknowledging and indeed celebrating that history.

It is also true that the US was founded in large part by people of intense religious belief who sought freedom of religion. There should be no dispute about celebrating that history.

It is also true that most religions imply certain moral codes, and it is certainly no bad thing to constrain politics by morality, whether it comes in religious garb or not.

Finally it is true that the great majority of religious people in the US happen to be Christians. A certain amount of respect for the beliefs and symbols of that majority's religion seems to me be incumbent upon us, out of civility if nothing else.

What generates the outrage from Christians is a seemingly well-founded perception that their beliefs are denigrated and that traditional, minor tokens of respect for their religion are under attack. A museum, partially supported by public funds, justifies an exhibit deliberately offensive to Christians on the grounds of "freedom of speech." A court, despite the ancient maxim that the magistrate should ignore trifles, amends the pledge of alliegance. That Bush's politics seem partially informed by a sincere religious sensibility is used to dismiss those politics as illegitimate. And on it goes. People whose views are under attack tend to respond.

Posted by: Jeff | Dec 22, 2004 12:58:02 PM

Posted by: David Velleman

They make the unreasonable (and unconstitutional) demand that private religious belief may not spill over into public lives. There are organizations with sufficient financing to cow little towns and businesses into submission over including an ichthus on a city seal, saying a prayer at a graduation, or putting a Nativity scene in the public park.

think of those espousing that this be a Christian nation as people just like you who don't want to be told they can't participate in public life because of the nature of their belief, who will not accede in being treated as losers when they've won, who will not accept they cannot say they're right just because there are competing beliefs, and who will not accept "keep it to yourself" as a legitimate shackle

You've mixed up all sorts of different cases. Of course "private religious belief" must be allowed to "spill over into public lives". Of course people must not be "told they can't participate in public life because of the nature of their belief". Of course no one should be told, "Keep it to yourself."

But incorporating a symbol of your religion into the official seal of our (that is, everyone's) city, or installing a symbol of your religion in our (that is, everyone's) park, is going far beyond participating in public life, or letting your beliefs spill into public, or speaking your mind. It's imposing your beliefs on others, which you may not do. Display the ichthus on your car, on your home, on your T-shirt, on the sign in front of your church. Display it as conspicuously as you like. No one may tell you to keep it yourself. But don't ask that the ichthus be displayed by the city, which belongs jointly to everyone, not to you or to any particular religion.

I suspect that what's behind your view is the insistence that Christians "will not accede in being treated as losers when they've won". What is it that Christians have won? And what would it be for Christians to be treated as losers? Is the idea that when Christians hold the mayors office and all of the seats on city council, then they've won the city, and they're entitled to make it a Christian city with an ichthus on its seal?

Posted by: David Velleman | Dec 22, 2004 1:10:52 PM

Posted by: Heidi

Calm down. I doubt that Don's agitating for a literal establishment of religion. I don't even think that the Texas GOP is either; there's a difference between saying that this is a Christian nation (something that is, to some extent, true) and saying that therefore, everyone in the nation must become Christian as a result. Somewhere between establishing a theocracy where infidels burn at the stake and pistol-whipping people who mention religion or morals in public discourse lies -- it's not entirely a happy medium, so let's call it -- some medium of minimal malcontentedness.

I've been thinking about this in the context of what we can actually teach in public schools. So, on the one hand, you have very harsh critics of intelligent design and creationism, who say "this is not science; it is religion." Which I agree with. But the next step -- "because this is religious, it should not be taught in the classroom" -- is not something I'm prepared to say yet. (aside: there are additional reasons intelligent design shouldn't be taught in the classroom) How can you possibly teach what science is without talking about what it isn't? How do you demonstrate where the boundaries are if you don't go beyond them?

And so I worry that removing religion from public schools, or from the public discourse itself, will result in the further dumbing down of America. Like it or not, religion has been a great animating cause. If we can't talk about religion -- if we can't acknowledge that religion shapes our public discourse -- we're kind of hosed, because then we basically have to lie. And that's somewhat suboptimal.

I don't have any answers either.

Posted by: Heidi | Dec 22, 2004 1:14:56 PM

Posted by: Craig Duncan

I think Slarrow is both right and wrong in his/her comments on the "Christian nation" issue.

He/she is *right* in the claim that those who speak the "Christian nation" language want the option to hang the Ten Commandments on the walls of courthouses and schools, put nativity scenes on the city hall lawn, have a prayer at graduation and at other times in school. (It is unclear to me, though, how many advocates of school prayer specifically demand *Christian* prayer; my sense is that most seem content with generically monotheistic prayer.)

These are largely symbolic issues. But that does not make them trivial. Symbols matter in the political sphere.

Slarrow is *wrong* in the claim that liberals are telling "Political Christians" that "they can't participate in public life because of the nature of their beliefs" (slarrow's words, from above). If you can't hang the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, is this really a ban on participating in public life? You can still vote, run for office, organize anti-abortion rallies, oppose stem cell research, or whatever.

Granted, living in a secular state puts some limits on what ideally you might like, especially regarding symbols on public display. But this is true for atheists like me too. I would never dream of having school children recite each day in class a Pledge of Allegiance that ended "one nation, in a godless universe, with liberty and justice for all."

Posted by: Craig Duncan | Dec 22, 2004 1:19:06 PM

Posted by: slarrow

Why are both sides defensive, AlanC9? I'll take a stab at it:

(1) What are in large part cultural issues have been pulled into the court system over the past several decades, changing them into legal and political issues. As such, they've transformed differences in lifestyles and preferences into contests where there are winners and losers.
(2) In an ongoing struggle, you win some, you lose some. However, with a media that can turn a local or regional episode into a national story, each of these struggles becomes more immediate, even though it might not (or ought not) afffect you. Also, since the story involves people you don't know or can't influence (because of distance, sometimes), a sense of powerlessness arises. That's where the sense of "the other side's winning" comes from and why it's widespread across the aisle, I think.
(3) Due to recourse to federal law and attempts to make things constitutional issues, actions in faraway localities really DOES affect one in one's own backyard. What the media provides in perception, the law provides in fact, adding to the feeling of powerlessness and a need to justify the actions taken against an apparently immovable tide (conceived as such, at least, in one's darker hours.)

So since this has become about winners and losers and since your side's losses anyway can be brought home to you immediately and emotionally...I think that accounts for the defensiveness on both sides.

Posted by: slarrow | Dec 22, 2004 1:22:37 PM

Posted by: David Velleman

Heidi --

I don't advocate "removing religion from public schools" if that means "we can't talk about religion". Of course we should talk about religion in public schools. I don't advocate removing religious symbols from public schools, if that means that no cross or star of David or crescent-and-star is to be allowed in sight.

The crucial distinction is between the symbols or words, on the one hand, and the acts in which they are used, on the other. A concert performance of a Mozart Mass is fine -- more than fine, it's wonderful -- but celebrating mass in the school auditorium is not. The first is artistic performance of a religious work; the second is a religious rite. Similarly, it's fine for children to wear symbols of their own religions, or for classes to view religious artwork and study religious symbolism, but the school itself must not display those symbols for the purpose of making a religious statement -- as it would, for example, if a cross were incorporated into the school flag.

To incorporate the ichthus into a city seal is to enlist the city in making a religious statement. It is deeply offensive, even for those of us who think that religion and religious symbols should be more in evidence in public life.

Posted by: David Velleman | Dec 22, 2004 1:38:58 PM

Posted by: AlanC9

slarrow, I'll have to disagree with one part of that. Things like school prayers, creches on city property, and posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms were always political matters; these are, by definition, government action. They just didn't appear to be political as long as one side had such an overwhelming majority that it was useless to raise the issue. There weren't "winners" and "losers," but that's only because non-Christians couldn't even get in the game.

Posted by: AlanC9 | Dec 22, 2004 1:46:57 PM

Posted by: slarrow

David, the problem with your position is that it assumes a neutral ground that does not exist. You make the common claim, "It's imposing your beliefs on others, which you may not do." This is self-stultifying. This is itself a moral position; it is itself a belief.

To make it clearer: Suppose I reject that belief and say, rather, that you can impose your beliefs on others (which we do all the time, anyway). In other words, suppose I take the opposite position from you. On what grounds do you then try to limit me, since to do so would be to force me to accede to a view I myself do not hold?

Put more broadly, to say that a group can't put a religious symbol on a city because it's everyone's city is not to carve out neutral ground. It's to give precedence to the non-religious "everyone" faction--especially when we're not talking about adding a symbol but subtracting it because of the objections of a small minority. David would like to assume that the exclusion of religious imagery from the public square is the default position. It is not. He would like to say that incorporating an ichthus into a city seal is a religious statement but pretend that stripping it from that seal is not. (And when it comes to being "offensive", that works two ways; neither is particularly useful.)

What is behind my "will not accede in being treated as losers when they've won" is not all that complicated: it's about a majority refusing to be ordered about by a minority. To say that others can't have Christian imagery in public places because "we're not all Christians here!" is to demand a limit on their behavior to make you happy. If the numbers are 4 to 1 in the Christians' favor, then I charge that the non-Christian is making an unneighborly and unreasonable demand.

Posted by: slarrow | Dec 22, 2004 1:50:01 PM

Posted by: Josh Jasper

What generates the outrage from Christians is a seemingly well-founded perception that their beliefs are denigrated and that traditional, minor tokens of respect for their religion are under attack.

That'd be a lot more convincing if so many of them didn't either attack or exclude people who don't share the faith.

Personaly, I'd be happy to include personal minor tokens of the faith as personal observances. It's when I or any children I might have are obligated or encouraged by the state to mimic the tokens that I get offended.

Posted by: Josh Jasper | Dec 22, 2004 2:01:20 PM

Posted by: Yes

Alanc9 wrote: "There's a large chunk of Red State America that, when you move into a new town, one of the first questions you get asked is "What church do you go to?". Try answering "I'm an athiest" and see how unpopular you become all of a sudden.

As an urban blue state resident, the idea that my religious practises, or lack thereof should matter to anyone is rather alien."

How do you know about the "large chunk?!" People like you make me sick, trying to attribute lies to those who think differently from yourself. Do you see that you contradict yourself in the above comments? Why is it that liberals are facist about their ideas?

Posted by: Yes | Dec 22, 2004 2:08:12 PM

Posted by: Bret

Here in San Diego, on the highest hill along the coast, sits a small park with a large white cross at the center of it. It's been there a long time. Someone sued the city a few years back and at the moment it looks like it is going to be taken down.

Being Jewish, I don't have a natural affinity for crosses in general, but I have to say that I'm going to miss this one. I've seen it virtually everyday for the past few decades, driving to work or to play, and in a city like San Diego that has been growing very rapidly, the constancy of this one landmark is a sort of comfort to me.

I understand that support for these sorts of actions is aimed at trying to prevent a tyranny of the religious majority. In the case of this cross, I'd bet at least 80% would like to see it stay and another 19% couldn't care less. Is it really so bad that an object that also happens to be a religious symbol happens to sit on public land when the vast, vast majority would like to keep it? Is the sight of the cross really so painful to those few citizens that brought the suit forward that it's okay to eliminate the enjoyment of a landmark by two million people? It's cases like these that make me question the blanket prohibition of Christian symbols from public spaces.

Posted by: Bret | Dec 22, 2004 2:11:28 PM

Posted by: slarrow

AlanC9, point taken, at least as a matter of definition. Looking again, I think it's better to say that it moves from a cultural question enforced by local politics to a larger political question that removes the question from local control. So local cultural questions all of a sudden become larger political ones that take on a life of their own.

But it illustrates two points in question. One is that of the will of the majority, the other the idea of that authority within nested jurisdictions that we loosely refer to as "federalism." That's what I'm getting at here. If you don't like that the majority of your town approves of displaying the 10 Commandments or that your school board schedules a prayer for graduation, either move or work within your community to get the political power to change it. The complaint Christians have is that those principles are trumped or short-circuited based on principles such as the "don't impose your beliefs" standard that we just can't find in the First Amendment.

Posted by: slarrow | Dec 22, 2004 2:12:40 PM

Posted by: Don Herzog

I'm against religious icons on city seals, displays of the ten commandments in courthouses, and the like. I don't think the state should greet its citizens by saying, "this is a (Judaeo-)Christian state. Don't worry, we're fair, maybe for denominational reasons, so the rest of you will be treated fairly." I don't think the numbers settle the question. "No ten commandments in the courthouse" needn't be read as "This jurisdiction rejects the ten commandments." It can, and should, be read as, "The ten commandments don't belong here." As is already clear in the comments on this thread, plenty of devoutly religious people will take that view too: recall the Christian indictment of Caesarism.

As to religous displays in public settings, it makes all the difference whether they are put there by private speakers who enjoy equal access to what the law calls a public forum. Roughly, if the space in question is open to any and all comers, on a sign-up or first-come-first-served basis, with no regard to what they have to say, then absolutely it is outrageous to exclude religious speakers. That's very different from saying the state can and should endorse a religious message. For the same reasons, I've no constitutional worries about a schoool voucher program where the vouchers could be used at parochial schools. (I do have policy concerns, but those are another matter.)

And slarrow, no, absolutely you're not aliens. You're friends, neighbors, loved ones, as well as fellow citizens. And I see no reason to map symbolic/policy onto stupid/wicked. I'm pushing on this question partly out of genuine curiosity, partly because of a longstanding concern about what I'll call "antiliberalism without tears." A favorite example is George Will's Statecraft as Soulcraft, where a take-no-prisoners assault on liberalism, largely indebted to the likes of Leo Strauss and Alasdair MacIntyre, leads to the lame afterthought that maybe we should tighten up anti-obscenity laws. Lots of bold principled arguments against liberalism are offered by people who continue furtively to rely on liberal principles. I want to know whether the Christian America crowd really means to reject any basic liberal views -- none of which are properly captured in slogans like "separation of church and state" or "naked public square" -- and if so, which ones.

Posted by: Don Herzog | Dec 22, 2004 2:18:47 PM

Posted by: pedro

Since when can slarrow speak for the majority of Christians in this country? I know a considerable number of them who have utter distaste for the erosion of the separation of Church and State. A Christian, slarrow, is not invariably someone who wishes to politicize his or her religious beliefs, let alone someone who endorses the idea that the State ought to declare itself Christian.

Posted by: pedro | Dec 22, 2004 2:20:16 PM

Posted by: David Velleman

slarrow:

Again, the question is not whether we can "have Christian imagery in public places". The question is what speech-act is being performed with that imagery, and by whom. You, a private citizen, may preach a sermon in the public square, or display religious placards there, etc. The question is whether the city council may install a religious display for the purpose of making a religious statement.

The statement that you may not impose your beliefs on others is not a universal statement. The constitution expresses beliefs that are binding on all -- not in the sense that individuals can be forced to believe them, of course, but in the sense that the state and its officers are required to act in accordance with them. And the non-establishment clause is part of the constitution.

Removing the ichthus from a city seal is not a religious statement. Insofar as it's a statement, it's a civic statement. It says, "Our city does not have an official religion" -- which is what the non-establishment clause requires. This statement is neither anti-religious nor anti-Christian: it is pro-constitutional.

Of course, if you think that not having a state religion is ipso facto anti-religious, and not having Christianity as the state religion is ipso facto anti-Christian, then we have reached an impasse.

Posted by: David Velleman | Dec 22, 2004 2:27:35 PM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

If only to prove that the devil can quote scriptures, I am inclined to note that the founder of Christianity finessed the issue nicely at Matthew 22:21. Of course, working out the details has proved to be a bit tricky.

I don’t think Mr. Herzog needs to worry for the immediate future about his tenured position. I know a few folks who actually do want to establish an American Christian theocracy, but if they can’t gain any traction in Virginia, they’re unlikely to make much headway in Michigan, either.

Clearly, much of the rhetoric is just that. Clearly, also, something is behind some of it. Many Christians continue to believe ‘their’ public schools were wrested from them by Washington and that Christianity (perhaps because it is the putative majority religion) continues to be singled out by ‘you secular humanists’ for the slightest hint that they might be sneaking a little evangelism into the public sphere while nobody’s noticing. Litigation-shy public schools have, as it were, thrown the Christ-child out with the baptismal water. (My 5th grade son’s “Winter Festival” concert included several Hanukah songs and one medley of otherwise unidentified ‘carols’ – are there such things as non-Christmas carols?)

Now, I don’t know how many people walking past a town hall Christmas crèche ever said to themselves “By golly, if Christianity is the official religion of the municipality of Springfield, it’s dang sure good enough for me!” but I don’t want to trivialize the genuine concerns Mr. Jasper and others have raised, either. For the life of me, I don’t see why our money should read “In God We Trust,” Congress should have a chaplain, the White House should have a Christmas tree or the Supreme Court’s bailiff should proclaim “God save this honorable court.” And, hell, I’m a Christian! Religious ceremonies of any sort should not be conducted by public officials in their official capacity, and that includes public schools. (Of course, my answer to that would be to privatize those schools, but I guess that’s a different thread.)

Even so, slarrow is correct in noting that many Christians believe themselves to be on the defensive. Moreover, many of them believe they are in a cultural war not only with ‘you secular humanists’ in the U.S. but increasingly on a global scale with another major monotheistic religion (and it ain’t Judaism, either). Now, you can think that’s absurd or that they are the ones being overly sensitive or whatever, but if you want to understand them better you’re going to have to get to know them better. Forgive me if I am mistaken here, but I would be willing to bet that, just as many of the authors of this blog probably don’t have many close friends who are conservatives or libertarians, few of you also know that many evangelical Christians very well. (The fact that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell’s names keep getting dropped is a pretty good sign. Anyone here familiar with John Stott? Read Rick Warren? Heard of Willow Church?) I don’t mean to condescend; I only suggest that there is a thriving sub-culture out there about which you are unreasonably concerned, perhaps because you haven't done your homework about it.

Then again, having done some more research, you might start to get *really* worried.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Dec 22, 2004 2:49:03 PM

Post a comment