Friday, June 15, 2012

Losing Our Religion


LOSING OUR RELIGION

    "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." 
                                        (John Adams, June 28, 1813, 1.)
    We know the story- the rich history of a quest for religious freedom in a journey fraught with danger.  It was the birth of a nation founded on the principles of freedom and religious tolerance, framed around Judeo-Christian values and the belief that the very freedom we enjoyed was a gift from God himself.   Not a theocracy, the core values of this country were that of simple Christian ethics framed around the idea of personal responsibility and limited government. 
    The course has been altered.  The 60’s, often seen as a turning point for much in our society, seemed to bring with the ideas of “free love”, sex, drugs, and rock and roll a natural turning away from the more standard, religious cultural ideals.  The ways of the past seemed hypocritical-sure we spoke of freedom, but racism abounded and the nation was in chaos, involved in an unpopular war, and dealing with the assassinations of the Kennedy’s and MLK.  Reeling from a decade of change, a turning point was reached and we turned from our spiritual roots to embrace secularism in both society and government.   But has it gone too far? How has this trend affected us?  Does the government share a roll?  And is there a double standard when it comes to how we relate to Christianity today?
    Somewhere along the way, the push toward secularism became a push against Christianity.  Prayer was banned in schools and religious holidays put on life support, there have been cries to change state mottos, remove memorials and the list goes on.   Cries for tolerance seem to wield a greater intolerance toward a Judeo Christian heritage full of symbolism.  There is a current debate at Camp Pendleton regarding a memorial erected 10 years ago by a group of grieving Marines to remember fallen brothers.  They erected a cross, and brought up rocks, ribbons and notes, as many have done since.  After a local paper did a story about the memorial several atheist groups complained and have threatened to file a law suit saying “the site violated the Constitutional mandate of separation of church and state” (3)  But according to widow Karen Mendoza, the cross has nothing to do with religion “It's not a religious spot at all, it's a place for the Marines to grieve and to grow to let go of their burdens of what they had in their soul, so they can go back down that hill and back into battle and put their own lives on the line.”   Stories like this one abound in our society today, with the push towards completely removing all symbols and phrases with any reference to God or the roots of Christianity, regardless of intent or harm.  To many evangelicals it seems that this goes beyond a change in attitude and that war has been raged against them and their Christian faith. 
   The cited rationale in each of these victories in the removal of religiosity is most often the “separation of church and state”.  So common has this become that many Americans believe the separation of church and state is a constitutional guarantee preventing religious expression or allowance of religious influence in government or public life.  Nowhere does this idea appear within the constitution.  In fact the constitution specifically prohibits the government from preventing religious expression.  The constitution protects, not prohibits expression and influence.  The “wall of separation between church and state” was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists seeking to assure them there would be no state control or influence upon the church, not that religion had no place within government and society.(2)
    The idea is that we do not become a European system with a state church that exists for political reasons and becomes a controlling force, not that a Christian prayer cannot be said at a graduation ceremony, or that the 10 commandments must be removed from a courthouse lawn.  The prevailing religions in the United States are Christian, the founding influence Christian, therefore a strong Christian influence is a reasonable expectation.
    Has the effect of secularism been positive?  At the heart of the Judeo Christian value system is personal responsibility and individualism.  The founders, not all Christian, revered the principles of Christianity and our founding documents are replete with Christian references. 
    George Washington in his farewell address noted that "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."(4)   The very nature of freedom is the allowance of men and women to regulate their own behavior, and it is the moral compass granted by faith that as Washington said, supports the prosperity of a free people. 
    So what happens when the fundamental ideals of Judeo Christian ethics are cast aside?  One needs only to look to the chaos that has become our public school system to see the result of lost responsibility and the demonization of religious principles.  As schools are pulling down copies of the Ten Commandments and replacing them with posters of Britney Spears wearing little more than a milk mustache, teachers, parents and administrators alike struggle with out of control kids.  Teen pregnancy, drinking and drug use have become all too common and teachers now play a duel role as both teacher and “Great Carnac” as they try to read through behavior for signs of abuse of every stripe and isolate the potential Columbine perpetrator. ”Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal”-seems rather benign in that context. 
     Schools are just a microcosm of the society that surrounds them.   To say that we are a society sex, drug and alcohol obsessed is to understate.  Our heroes on the field, screen, and radio are all too often studies of amoralism.  The moral compass spins away as no behavior is off limits, “if it feels good, do it” no matter the cost.  The more outrageous and abhorrent the behavior the more “inquiring minds want to know”-and we do.   Our screens and grocery isles are saturated with the sex lives of the Kardashians,’ Branjelina’, and the Jersey Shore bunch.  According to Univ. of Denver professor Jim Taylor “The heroes that emerge in a generation are the living manifestation of the zeitgeist of the times which doesn't speak well of this recent generation…Today's zeitgeist is vastly different, controlled by a popular culture that worships the antihero. Many of today's entertainers, athletes, and other popular culture icons exemplify everything that is unheroic in our society -- 50 Cent and Britney Spears, Terrell Owens, and Paris Hilton -- yet are seen as heroes in the eyes of children. Many of today's heroes encourage values that are also unheroic, such as selfishness, dishonesty, disrespect, irresponsibility, greed, cruelty, and violence. “
    We have shifted from a society that seeks greatness and goodness to one that seeks to glorify mediocrity-we can’t have winners or competition.  We have moved from being self- sufficient and hard working to expectant of others to carry the load and bear responsibility be it for a loan we cannot repay to a child we did not plan.
    Government has not been immune to blame in the devolution of American Christianism.  Front and center for weeks in every news outlet was the Obamacare/ Catholic Church contraception issue.  We saw story after story about the waging war against the mighty Catholic Church.  For most within the church, and many in other denominations, contraception was not really the issue, but rather the government stepping on the practices and standards of the church and squelching their first amendment rights.  If the government could determine the allowances of behavior acceptable within a church, could they not determine sin itself and mandate tolerance for what churches preach against?  Bishop Paul Loverde wrote that ““I am absolutely convinced that an unprecedented and very dangerous line has been crossed.” (5)   
    New Government mandates have had an effect on other issues within the church-adoption and foster care, migration services, funding in the fight against human trafficking, the ability of churches to lease or rent public buildings-there is a new direction in the relationship between Christianity and the state.  So concerned is the Catholic church that they have launched a campaign to protect religious liberty in the United States, a liberty they believe to be integral to the continuation of freedom itself.  According to a document from the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops, ““This is not a Catholic issue. This is not a Jewish issue. This is not an Orthodox, Mormon or Muslim issue. It is an American issue.” (6)
    Within the overall context of this American religious issue is a changing perception of what is considered appropriate speech or behavior toward people groups.  What is offensive, and what is considered ok, and is it the same for everyone?
     The silence was deafening.  In 2008, several churches in the US sent Bibles in several Afghan languages to the base at Bagram.  Doing so was a violation of current US regulations regarding prostyletizing  and the Bibles were rounded up and burned.  When questioned about taking the step to burn the Bibles, which to Christians is the written Word of God, Lt. Col. Mark Wright told CNN that the “troops at posts in war zones are required to ‘burn their trash’”.  The US Government response to the Bible burnings?   None.  Apologies?  None.
    Apologies abounded, however, when in April Korans confiscated after hidden messages were found written within were burned.  Riots and violence ensued, dozens lost their lives, and the US government could not apologize enough.  While the response would never have been the same, the offense in fact was.  Imagine referring to the Koran as “trash”. (7) 
    The desire to preserve the influences of Christendom is not simply a religious issue.  It is not a Christian caliphate.  It is at its core a desire to maintain the structure and basis of our freedom, including our freedom to worship as we please-or to choose not to worship at all.  It is the preservation of a value system that promotes self- governance through moral and ethical certitude, without which, the system fails.  As Benjamin Franklin artfully said “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” (8)

References

No comments:

Post a Comment