kgilbri7-blog - Tumblr blog

kgilbri7-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

One of the top issues facing the collective Christian Church today is secularism. Vanderburg, in his book, Secular Nation Under New Gods: Christianity’s Subversion by Technology and Politics, states, “The early Christians found themselves in a unique situation, where they had to interpret their faith and life in relation to their Jewish roots, the Christian gospel, and the pagan cultures in which they lived.”[1] We are now in another issue, not quite so unique, in modern society, where Christians live out their faith “in relation” to secularism. Our language has changed and how our language has changed influences our behavior, especially our moral behavior. We have become a technological society, highly dependent upon symbols and visual aids. We have become “relegated to the service of images”[2] online, in social media, and elsewhere, where we “scan what everyone else is doing and saying for clues to how [we] should behave.”[3]

Defining secularism can be a dissertation, in and of itself, therefore, to keep it simple and out of the realm of academic and theological lingo, here is the Merriam -Webster definition: “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations: the belief that religion should not play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society”[4] For the American-Western culture what began as a concept of freedom of religion has progressed to freedom from religion. Secularism has changed our language and through this change of language, our images have changed. In the attempt to establish a government sans religious influences, we have succeeded in taking religion out of the sandbox and regulated it to nursing home status and attributed it to a bygone era of sentimentality.

Secularism’s popularity and final infiltration into the fabric of American culture had its auspices within the interpretation of the First Amendment. Freedom from religion and what we now consider the separation of church and state were not the original intent of our founding fathers when they wrote and then ratified the Constitution and its subsequent articles and amendments. This statement may appear uninformed and without substantial backing, however, this is simply not the case. If we go a bit deeper then historical rhetoric served to us by popular media and even academia riddled with bias and myths. Yes, the writers of these historical documents used language that was devoid of religious connotations and rhetoric; neither did they strive to divorce the Christian faith from the political and governmental arenas altogether.

Myth: The First Amendment helped to establish the separation of church and state.

Myth Buster: They wanted to keep the government from instituting a state-run church that chooses one Christian sect and/or religion over another and protects the practice of Christianity itself.

Evidence:

On December 15, 1791, the First Amendment, along with nine other Amendments, to the Constitution was adopted to ensure the protection of certain freedoms, namely religion, speech, press, assembly, and the petitioning of the Government regarding grievances:

“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.”[5]

Notice the word “protection”; the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wanted insurance against these freedoms being taken from its citizens. There was never the intention to divorce religion away from the public arena; only to keep the government from establishing a state religion. The protection they were looking for was not protection from religion but from governmental influence on religious choice. Now is the time many people will pull out the separation of church and state argument.

This posture and/or argument is so long-standing that we have made it into an American anthem. For instance, on the History Channel’s website, “while not explicitly stated, [the] [first] amendment establishes the long-established separation of church and state.”[6] It is not “explicitly stated” because it was not implied implicitly or explicitly. This is also where some astute observers may state, well it does not say “respecting an establishment of Christianity” in the First Amendment, now does it? Yes, an astute and true observation, it does not state the word Christianity, instead, it does state religion, which would recall images of religion in the sense of all the mono-poly-anima theistic religions out in the world today. Current Supreme Court opinion would agree. They see the word religion in the first amendment and apply a broader brush struck definition to include all religions. In a Cornell Law Review paper, Ben Clements opines:

“Although the framers probably conceived of religion in a theistic manner, it is not at all clear that they intended the religion clauses to apply only to theistic religions. Moreover, the broad purpose of the religion clauses was not merely to assure the liberty of…. religious denominations, but rather to protect the religious impulses of man from government interference”[7]

In other words, “that the First Amendment does indeed allow the freedom of other religions to be practiced but not at the expense of that freedom, which, in this country is afforded by Christianity and ultimately God. Again, there is allowance but no guarantee of the freedom of all religions to be practiced in our country. In other words, freedom is not to be practiced to the detriment of itself and, therefore, religion in our country is not to be practiced to the detriment of Christianity.”[8]

Going deeper, what was the purpose and intent of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (the part about religion). The purpose of the clause has already been stated or has it? The writer of the First Amendment, namely James Madison, acknowledge that though he “introduced the first draft of the Bill of Rights in Congress and shepherded it to approval there. [He]…. plainly implied on the floor of Congress that the Establishment Clause embodied views other than his own.”[9]

Robert G. Natelson writing for the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal went deeper, answers why the First Amendment was written and then later adopted “because political realities demanded it. The crucial political reality of the time was that to secure ratification of the Constitution, the document's proponents, the Federalists, had to make a deal, a Gentlemen's Agreement…. Under the terms of the bargain, the federalists committed… to addressing…certain concerns expressed by antifederalists, several of which involved religion. Specifically, the Federalists had to acquiesce to a constitutional amendment to ensure that the federal government would neither "establish" religion nor interfere with free exercise. The historical record pertaining to the Gentlemen's Agreement is copious.”[10]

Natelson furthers the point that “the phrase ‘free exercise’ [used] [by] the founding generation appears to have meant freedom of religion for all theists, not just Christians; but not the freedom from religion sought by atheists and agnostics.”[11] He came to this conclusion by researching not only Madison and the Gentlemen’s Agreement, But He also intertwined other researchers’ investigations and findings. As stated by Natelson, “The founding generation saw freedom of religion as dependent on faith in God and would have viewed freedom of religion for atheists or agnostics as a contradiction in terms. The idea of free exercise was freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. If, as concluded above, the Establishment Clause rested on contemporary notions of free exercise, then the Establishment Clause must not have prevented governmental sponsorship of religion in general.”[12]

What does our early and resource intense discourse on religious freedoms have to do with modern technological secularism? Our early American forefathers were tasked with coming up with a governmental system that reflected the needs of the constitutes while establishing a long-viewed deliverable that is sustainable. Technology has influenced religion. In 2014, a blog writer for the MIT Review records a disturbing correlation: that a “drop in religious upbringing and the increase in Internet use seem to be causing people to lose their faith.[13]” Though correlations do not prove causations, this piece of evidence shows that there might be a relationship between the two factors. Here is another side of the relationship between technology and religion;

For many, the development of new technologies has been about transcending mortal and material concerns completely. When an ideology, a religion, or a technology is pursued the purpose of escaping the human condition where problems and disappointments are a fact of life, then it shouldn't be at all surprising when those human problems are not really solved, when human needs are not entirely met, and when new problems are produced.[14]

Now there is a question, have we created technology to replace God?

We started out in American wanting to ensure our freedoms; freedoms of speech and religion; freedom to be who we want to be without the government dictating our lives. Now we are allowing the Internet to dictate our beliefs, culture, morals, and values. Technology is not moving us closer to God; it is moving us away from God and from freedom of Religion to freedom from religion.

[1] Willem H. Vanderburg, Secular Nation under New Gods: Christianity’s Subversion by Technology and Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto, 2018), xiii.

[2] Ibid, 7.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Secularism.” Merriam - Webster. Accessed March 7, 2019. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secularism.

[5] U.S. Constitution, amend. 1, (emphasis added).

[6] Ray Allen et al., “First Amendment,” History, December 4, 2017, https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/first-amendment.

[7] Ben Clements, “Defining Religion in the First Amendment: A Functional Approach,” Cornell Law Review 74, no. 3 (March 1989): 534, https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol74/iss3/4/ (emphasis added).

[8] P2ALM, “What Is the Original Intent of Our First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion?” Cultural Commentaries (blog), July 2, 2012, https://p2alm.com/2012/07/02/what-is-the-original-intent-of-our-first-amendments-freedom-of-religion/.

[9]Robert G Natelson, “The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause,” William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 14, no. 1 (2005): 78, ttps://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol14/iss1/6.

[10] Ibid, 79.

[11] Ibid, 97.

[12] Ibid, 101. (emphasis added).

[13] KentuckyFC, “How the Internet Is Taking Away America’s Religion,” Physics arXiv Blog, MIT Technology Review, April 2014, https://www.technologyreview.com/profile/emerging-technology-from-the-arxiv/.

[14] Austin Kline, “The Relationship between Technology and Religion,” ThoughtCo, February 27, 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/technology-as-religion-4038599.

0 notes

kgilbri7-blog · 6 years ago

Text

All-Points Bulletin: Wanted: Honor; Last Seen with Moral Values

“So goes the moral compass of the people, so goes the popular culture — so goes the political system, as well.”-Cheryl K Chumley, The Washington Times[1]

In 2010, CNN’s Jack Cafferty reported that “a new Gallup poll paints a depressing picture of the state of our moral values in the U.S. [and] that 45 percent of those surveyed describe morality in this country as ‘poor’... only 15 percent - fewer than one in five– say ‘excellent or good.”[2] Bloomberg retells this same tale, “More than 80 percent of people polled rate moral values in the U.S. as fair or poor—a seven-year low, and 77 percent of respondents to a new Gallup poll say the state of moral values will continue to get worse.”[3]

Some people might see the progression of American society as becoming better or more tolerant of differing cultural values. If, this is so, should we not have a society then that improves in its key indicators of success? If tolerance and coexistence, the prosperity gospel, the new age movement, and the overall “do what makes you happy as long as you are not hurting anyone” mantra was so effective; why are we not seeing the result of this in society? We ARE seeing the results of these behaviors and attitudes.

We are becoming a morally bankrupt culture because if everything is permissible then where do we draw the line in the proverbial sand? There is no line in the sand because we do not draw one anymore. No, our arms are not broken, quite the contrary, our collective arm is busy doing other things. And if we draw a line in the sand then in effect, we must make judgment calls as to what is “right” and what is “wrong” and well…we just do not do that anymore because we might offend someone or not be viewed as a team player or as someone who is not P.C. (politically correct). When we are busy appeasing everyone, we appease no one.

“Sputter…Humm…the Bible says, ok maybe I am confused here, but the Bible teaches us not to judge.[4]” One of the Bible verses most people quote at this point is “do not judge so that you will not be judged.”[5] This is also a verse in the Good Book that is very misused. Biblical commentator, Albert Barnes, would tell us that this command is speaking about a certain type of judgment not a pronouncement against all judgment. If that were so, how would we decide what to do every day? What is meant, instead, is “rash, harsh, and uncharitable judgments.”[6]

Getting back to the APB, if we can use a moral compass, then, perhaps we can find our way back. In the days of ole, and not saying these “ole” days did not have their issues, people knew right from wrong because they were taught a moral code; an honor system. Think about the meaning of the word “honour” or “honor.” The online English Oxford Dictionary, defines honor, in its noun usage as someone who is “upright, held in high esteem, respected, privileged, and of distinction” and it is “the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right.”[7]

One of the top themes found in literature and in movies is Good vs Evil. We know the heroes from the villains because of their behavior, namely their code of honor. Yes, there can be a code among thieves, the standard for “the good: courage, freedom, loyalty, and honor and…the bad: cowardice, imprisonment, selfishness, and betrayal.”[8] Some of the top grossing movies deal with characters of honor, living or doing things honorably or fighting for the honor of something: Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars series, Avenger series, and the more recent Black Panther.[9] Notice, too that some of these movies deal with superheroes, who have their own code of honor. We crave honor because it is missing. What is America’s code of honor based on today?

[1] Cheryl K Chumley, “America's Morals On Crash Course to Rome,” Washington Times, June 5, 2018, under “Opinion/Commentary,” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/5/americas-moral-compass-worst-its-ever-been-poll/.

[2] Jack Cafferty, “What's behind precipitous decline in America's morality?,” Cafferty File (blog), CNN, May 17, 2010, http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/17/whats-behind-precipitous-decline-in-americas-morality/.

[3] Suzanne Woolley, “Americans Say U.S. Moral Values at a Seven-Year Low,” Bloomberg, May 22, 2017, under “Business,” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-22/americans-see-u-s-moral-values-at-a-seven.

[4] Mt 7:1: Unless otherwise indicated, all scriptural quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Albert Barnes, "Commentary on Matthew 7:1," Barnes' Notes on the New Testament: Complete in One Volume, 8th ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1990), 34.

[7] "Honour". OED Online. December 2018. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/88227

[8] Noelle Buffam, “Top 10 Central Themes in Film,” The Script Lab, April 1, 2011, https://thescriptlab.com/screenwriting/story/story-development/1005-top-10-central-themes-in-film/11/.

[9] “All Time Box Office,” Box Office Mojo, February 16, 2018, https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/.

1 note · View note