http://www.heritech.com/pridger/religion/10com.htm

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Vetoed by the ACLU

by William R. Carr

Other Related Items
See also A Short Dissertation on School Pray, (below)
What Me? Join the ACLU?
The Dry Road to Righteousness -- Religious Prohibition (a poem)
My Religious Awakening

Return to Pridger's Index

The American Civil Liberties Union, in its self-appointed role as the nation's constitutional watch-dog and legal police force, is concerned with enforcing religious tolerance in the interests of freedom of speech and diversity. They promote religious tolerance by insisting on absolute intolerance of Christian religious expression in a nation whose population is still overwhelmingly of the Christian faith.

Introduction

On 26th of October, 1999, the school board in Harrisburg, Illinois decided to post three historic documents side by side in its schools -- The Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights. It was their hope that posting the Ten Commandments might detour some students from lying, stealing, and killing, etc. The documents, were handsomely framed and posted unobtrusively in the principles' offices. The American Civil Liberties Union soon got word of this outrage, however, and threatened the board with a costly lawsuit unless the offensive Ten Commandments were taken down. Though widely supported by both parents and students, and other members of the community, the board caved to the threat, and the documents came down.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." (First Amendment to the Constitution)

BACKGROUND NOTE:

It is interesting to note that the entire cult of "Separation of Church and State," which has grown like a cancer over our political landscape, is predicated upon the first ten words of the First Amendment to the Constitution. From those simple and unambiguous words (containing what is now known as the "Establishment clause"), intended simply to prohibit Congress from establishing an official state religion, has grown -- through the good offices of multitudes of humanist scholars and creative "constitutional" lawyers -- a mountain of legal doctrine and dogma. The following half dozen words, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," have had practically no impact at all among those stalwart proponents of the de-Christianization of our nation. The next half dozen words, "or abridging the freedom of speech," are used by the same forces, in concert with the natural inclinations of the basest elements of society, to legitimize, and popularize, four letter words in public entertainment media and general usage.

Nowhere is the "doctrine" of the separation of church and state mentioned or implied in the Constitution. If there is a federal law somewhere that mandates it, this writer is unaware of it. If such exists, only the courts, and not our representatives, have enacted it. The concept merely "grew" and grew, and grew (with careful nourishment from generations of anti-Christians bent on the transformation of our nation).

Thomas Jefferson is pointed to as being one of the first and most vigorous advocates of the separation of church and state. Of course, this is true, but he did not intend to suppress all religious expression, nor disassociate the United States from its essential Christian underpinnings and identity. One must thoroughly review Jefferson's carefully reasoned purposes. What Jefferson sought was to prevent narrow church dogma from somehow being institutionalized by government authority. He wanted to secure a secular state, firmly based on the Christian ethic, which, while totally free from restrictive religious dogma, nonetheless acknowledged God as the Highest Governing Authority.

Jefferson had no delusions as to the nature of most religious establishments, and the power they would exert given the opportunity -- for tyranny had stalked the western world for millennia in Christian robes.

"...I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man..." (a letter to Dr. Rush, 1800)

"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he [Jesus] wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others." (to Dr. Rush, 1803).

"We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus." (To J. Fishback, 1809)

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus..." (to C. Thompson, 1816)

"Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian." (to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, 1822)

These are the words of a man who would prevent his nation from falling into sectarian error of nations past. But the Jeffersonian concept of separation of church and state does not in any way imply the desire to build a "wall" or literal "iron curtain" of censorship against all religious expression in the public arena.

WHAT ME? JOIN THE ACLU?

Ironically, the day I planned to post this more-or-less anti-ACLU web-page (01/03/00), I received an invitation to join the ACLU from Executive Director, Ira Glasser. This happens every once in a while because I'm on almost as many liberal and "left-wing" mailing lists as conservative and "right-wing" mailing lists. Early in my article below, I concede, "...the ACLU has done a few good things in its long and distinguished history. But..."

...But I'm not going to join. This writer is no great fan of the ACLU, as will become abundantly clear in the following article. For more on where the ACLU and I part company, see What Me? Join the ACLU?

And now on the the original article this page was intended to feature...

THE TEN COMMANDMENT FRAY

I'm sorry to learn that the majority of the Harrisburg school board has felt it necessary to capitulate to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on the Ten Commandments issue.

The director of communications for the ACLU, Ed Yohnka, is pleased. As he said, "...education is always preferable to litigation."

Now will the ones who threatened litigation please stand up!!??

It seems rather peculiar, in an allegedly democratic society, that the will of the majority can be so easily overturned at the whim of such a minuscule minority as the ACLU -- even if that minority is comprised of several high-powered, overzealous, and apparently over-funded lawyers. It doesn't seem right that "outsiders," acting as self-appointed constitutional police, can overturn the will of the people. But the ACLU (an un-elected, self-appointed, watch-dog group) has the power to turn democratic principle on its ear simply by threatening expensive litigation.

I'll have to admit, the ACLU has done a few good things in its long and distinguished history. But as often as not it seems to act in the capacity of "spoiler" rather than defender. It too often seems eager to defend the whims of a few contrarians against the legitimate rights and will of majorities. That appears to be the case here.

Like the ACLU, I'm all for the separation of church and state. That is, insofar as it means what the founders wrote into law, i.e., Washington "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Our religion (as well as most others) was already well established long before the Constitution was ever thought of. Nor shall Washington, or anybody else, (including the ACLU) make any law, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Unlike the ACLU, I am not for the de-Christianization of America, nor the total suppression of religious expression. I take exception to their view of the applicability of the "Establishment clause" (even in their own context), to community schools. I happen to believe community schools (yes, "public" schools) should have enough autonomy and independence of action to discreetly reflect at least a modicum of their community's predominate values, whether they be Christian, Hindu, or Shinto. That, in my view, would constitute a simple civil liberty.

The suppression of every vestige of religious expression, whether on the town square or in public schools, is hardly a manifestation of religious freedom. Quite to the contrary, it is a symptom of the very kind of oppression many of our forefathers sought to escape by fleeing to the New World.

I also decline the implied interpretation (promoted by the ACLU, and many academics) that our public schools are de facto extensions of the federal government. That notion is arrived at through the "bonanza" of federal financial assistance. The government returns tax money to the states to help fund public education -- thus, by processes beyond the understanding of ordinary citizens, public schools are subject to strict ACLU oversight.

(By the way, beware of the federal "school voucher" proposal. It isn't such a good idea. Wherever "federal" money goes, the presumption of federal control follows! And the ACLU will be right in the train.)

As for the value received for federal "assistance" and interference, it might be worth noting that our national educational standards and levels of scholastic achievement have declined in inverse proportion to the increase in federal involvement. Few deny that we have a national educational crises on our hands. Our kids are getting smarter, they say, but nonetheless they seem to be graduating with less and less in the way of education's basic essentials. Functional illiteracy has become common-place in the nation which once prided itself on being one of the world's most literate. The ACLU marches into the educational battlefield on the coattails of the premise that our schools are effectively instruments of federal authority.

The ACLU's position, in effect, is that the posting of the Ten Commandments contaminates our schools with a religious message, thereby violating the spirit and intent of the First Amendment, as interpreted for us by the ACLU. They hold that it constitutes advocating the establishment of a state religion, no less! Incredibly, many who are sympathetic to the postings actually echo the ACLU line that freedom of religion itself hinges on the total suppression and banishment of all vestiges of religion from all state-sponsored institutions.

Article II of the Constitution directs that the president of the United States

"...shall take the following oath or affirmation:  'I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'

Custom decrees the use of the words 'So help me God' at the end of the oath when taken by the president-elect, his or her left hand on the Bible for the duration of the oath, with his or her right hand slightly raised." (Excerpted from The Complete Reference Collection [Compton's Home Library]. Copyright c 1994, 1995, 1996 [emphasis and paragraph break added])

Literally all of our representatives, most other public officials, and men and women of the armed services, take similar oaths (Clinton even took it!). I believe official Christian prayers are still delivered in the halls of the highest deliberative bodies in the land. I don't think Congress has yet fired its chaplain or required him to repudiate his faith. These shocking things have been going on for over two centuries! What are the implications? Do these constitute a mass violation of the "Establishment clause" by the federal state itself? If so, it's a wonder it hasn't already resulted in the establishment of a state religion and the total curtailment of religious freedom! Why hasn't the ACLU attacked?

I haven't heard the ACLU's official position on these flagrant violations in high places, but I know they must be quite worried, and acutely embarrassed. They must feel that action on such matters is very urgent and long over due. I strongly suspect they would prefer that the Bible be replaced by a folded flag or perhaps a copy of the Wall Street Journal. Maybe just crossed fingers would do. "So help me God," of course, could be shortened to, "So help Me!" or, "Honest I do!"

As SIUC sociology professor, Rhys Williams, recently observed (speaking against the posting of the Ten Commandments at an ACLU sponsored open forum in Carbondale), "...American culture has changed immensely since the adoption of the Constitution. The religious practices of early American history, do not conform with the diverse culture of current society."

Who would disagree? But "religious practices," then and now, are hardly the real issue here. The important issue has everything to do with the ideals of proper conduct, which haven't changed appreciably in millennia -- and the right to post ancient and timeless evidence of them. The advent of "the diverse culture of current society" is quite irrelevant to the fundamental ideals and principles which ought to govern society.

Effectively mixing apples and oranges, as if to add even more confusion to the current controversy, Mr. Williams then added, "Who knows what the founders were thinking? I'm not one of those 'original intent' kind of guys."

Pardon my ignorance, but I've always been under the impression that most of our founders were rather adept at putting their thoughts (and their "intents"), down in writing. I thought some were down-right proliferate at the task. We can read those thoughts today as if they were written only yesterday. Time does not change them, regardless of what it may have done to our national culture and its educational and moral climate. The written evidence (if its meanings haven't changed) would clearly indicate that most of our nation's founders would tend to agree with what many Americans believe today: that if the notion of a "Christian America" is ever expunged from our national consciousness, our nation will fall into the kind of perennial error and strife that has been the story of men and nations throughout history. Regrettably, we've gone a long way in that direction.

Whether we, or the ACLU, like it or not, even in this day of increasing diversity of faiths, the Bible and Christianity are irrevocably ingrained in our national character. To deny it is a vote to overturn that national character. Though the Christian religion has never been an official state religion, "Christianity" has been (and should continue to be) our national guiding principle -- not the narrow and bigoted versions the ACLU and its camp-followers habitually prefer to focus on, but the one that promotes brotherly love, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, and understanding. The one that says "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

It is this very principle which spawned the notions of "Liberty and Justice for all" and "Freedom of Religion" in the first place, and brought them to fruition in this country. That principle, of course, is a universal possession (it is not confined to professing Christians alone, but belongs to men and women of good will of all faiths), and it has made the diversity and degree of harmony with which we have been blessed, possible. It was the very seed of spiritual enlightenment for which today's secular humanists would have us believe they alone are exclusively responsible.

The Bible, for all the criticism that may be directed against many of its passages, is nonetheless symbolic of that great and enduring principle. Whether one believes Biblical scripture represents divinely inspired historical record, or merely a mythological rendition of Jewish history, the text itself is a classical document of undeniable and enduring value. It stands on its own merit as one of our civilization's greatest collective works of literature, regardless of its origins. The Old Testament, in which the Ten Commandments appear, is a holy text (in slightly varied interpretation and form), to three of the world's major religious belief systems: Judaism, Muslim, and Christian.

The Ten Commandments themselves arguably form the very basis of much of our civil law. And there is nothing contained therein likely to contribute to the delinquency of minors, or lead our youth astray. In fact, the opposite may arguably be true. Overtly banning the Ten Commandments from our schools (most especially in overwhelmingly Christian communities), may indeed send the wrong message to wayward youth, strengthening the hand, and anti-social tendencies, of those most inclined to disobey the more important commandments -- such as, thou shalt not steal, or kill, etc.

The ACLU makes it their business to seek out cases of special symbolic significance from their humanist point of view, which (it is no secret), is generally hostile to all religion. Unfortunately, to many humanists, God is a four letter word, and about the only one they would ban from our schools and popular culture. Regardless of an abundance of good intentions on the part of the ACLU, their efforts often seem counterproductive to an orderly society.

For example, organizations like the ACLU readily defend the right to publish pornography, and punctuate the public entertainments with profanity and excessive violence, on grounds of "freedom of expression." They do so without the slightest regard to the majority who may be outraged thereby. The response to all moral outrage is, Tough! Close your eyes if you don't want to see it! Close your ears if you don't want to hear it! Control your children if you don't want them exposed to it!

In the case of the Ten Commandments controversy, however, the ACLU takes exactly the opposite approach. They express concern that the commandments (do not kill, steal, covet, etc.) may offend somebody's religious, or ever secular, sensitivities. They hold that the great unwashed public must be protected from such evils! The ACLU is eager to sue against the posting of the Ten Commandments whether or not there has been a public outcry or even a single complaint in the matter. They do it on general principle, in their capacity as self-appointed guardians of freedom and liberty as they see it.

Now I'd like to point out that I have nothing against humanists. In fact, I claim to have a considerable amount of human blood coursing through my own veins. I'm not ashamed to admit that I've never been Baptized into any religion nor exposed to a single drop of holy water. I've never been converted, inverted, or perverted by any apostle of any faith. I haven't been born again, nor do I expect to be in this lifetime. Once was enough to satisfy my curiosity. I'm more likely to warm an iceberg in Antarctica than a church pew. But I am not overly fond of spoilers, whether they claim humanist, Baptist, or Zoroastrian credentials.

The Harrisburg school board seemed to represent the views, and expressed will, of the overwhelming majority of parents and students in the community it serves. Did the majority tread upon the rights of any minority religious group? Are non-Christians somehow denigrated, and non-believers somehow abused, by the posting of the Ten Commandments? Was anybody required to read, recite, or bow down before the document against their will? Did it jump out of its frame and molest anybody? The ACLU may think so, but this writer doesn't.

Did a local Hindu sect call the ACLU in to squash the perceived tyranny of the majority? Did some disgruntled atheist complain? More likely, some crank called them up.

As with humanists, I have nothing against the ordinary benign crank. Some of my dearest friends are cranks. I do, however, take exception to the aggressive variety, to whom spoiling is a hobby or full-time business. The ACLU appears to act on behalf of cranks and spoilers everywhere. Its primary intent in Harrisburg, or so it seems to this writer, is to negate the will of the majority on a whim of wrongly conceived constitutional "principle." Beyond thwarting the will of the people of the community, dealing a blow to religion in general, and the Christian religion in particular, I fail to see any high purpose served at all.

If our public schools are now in fact federally controlled government indoctrination centers for strictly secular education (rather than community and state educational entities), then let that government itself, through its Supreme Court or Federal Marshall Service (not the ACLU), come and lay the law down in black and white before the several state legislatures and boards of education, stating: "Ye shalt not post the Ten Commandments, nor cite any religious reference, in 'our' schools."

Let's first see the Supreme Court building itself, and all other public buildings in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, cleansed of the Ten Commandments and all other religious references. Raze the Washington Monument, which I understand is capped with the Latin words "Laus Deo," meaning "Praise be to God!" And raze practically every federal building in Washington. Let's see "God and Country" expunged from our songs, pledges, oaths, and folklore. Let's see "In God We Trust" removed from our currency. Let's see the Bible itself banned from all federal buildings and court-rooms across the nation. But let's see all this done with the knowledge and approval of the majority of the American people.

Has the ACLU threatened the federal government with a lawsuit for its habitual and "customary" violations of the "Establishment clause?" Where better begin defining and enforcing the strict separation of church and state than at the source of federal power?

Our federal establishment may be embarrassingly short on saving grace these days, but so far there has been a marked reticence to the wholesale removal of our national icons. (Could it be that we still have a grain of representative government in our hallowed capital?) The ACLU lawyers have wisely refrained from taking on the federal government itself on these pressing matters -- at least so far.

No, the ACLU picks on the small fry, because that's where it can play the spoiler and succeed, with its overwhelming advantage in terms of money and legal talent. We have a simple term for this tactic -- bullying.

In the final analysis, the ACLU's great ideological mission seems to have more to do with trampling the icons of grass roots majorities than defending rights or constructively sorting out constitutional issues. It enjoys no broad public mandate (nobody elected the ACLU to represent us or act as our constitutional watch-dog), but draws strictly upon its ample funding and its great arsenal of legal minds as its All-Mighty sources of power.

The Ten Commandment issue is apparently dead letter in Harrisburg for the time being. Unlike the ACLU, the school board cannot afford a major legal battle. So the Harrisburg school board has retreated, succumbing to the high-powered assault of outside interests. (So much for the concept of democracy and community majority rule.) The ACLU has spoken. Amen!

But perhaps all is not lost. May I suggest to the "Raise the Standard" organization, and the Harrisburg school board, that they consider the adoption of Jesus' "commandments" from Matthew 19:18-19, alongside the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, as an alternate to the Ten Commandments? Though the ACLU would undoubtedly look at it with a jaundiced eye, it might squeak by their muster if carefully preceded by a powerful disclaimer such as this:

NOTICE: The following moral precepts provided the ancient foundation for legal systems throughout the western world. Though derived from varied and sundry ancient sources -- this particular list is attributed to the Hebrew, Jesus of Nazareth, who was teaching his personal rendition of Judaic Law.

Be it further noted that this school holds the concept of the separation of church and state inviolable. This posting is not intended to imply a preference of Biblical textual material over that of any other religious or secular work. This posting does not imply that this school, its employees, governing body, or any authority under which it operates, subscribe to any of these precepts as religious beliefs. The school board hereby specifically certifies that this posting is for educational purposes only, as an historical curiosity, and is not in any way intended for religious guidance. It is deemed educationally relevant solely due to the fact that many of our nation's founders read from its source, and identified themselves with the Christian religion -- at a time when our society was much less diverse than it is today.

Such a disclaimer, of course, would be impossible — because it would be a lie.

THE COMMANDMENTS REITERATED BY JESUS
(Matthew 19:18-19)

The above "six commandments" (just as the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, listed below) are in fact secular in both content and context, even though derived from a religious source. Nobody, possessed of good character, tolerance, and sound mind, could take serious issue with them, (Maybe not even the ACLU).

Back to Top of Page

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

Vetoed by the ACLU. Amen!

MY TEN SUGGESTIONS

For Atheists, Agnostics, and humanists who can't stand the Ten Commandments

1. Try to respect the religious beliefs and customs of others.

2. Try to respect the graven images of others.

3. Try not to take the name of any other's deity in vain.

4. Try to respect the religious observances of others.

5. Try to respect your parents if humanly possible.

6. Try to avoid needless killing (including bombing).

7. Try to avoid adultery and other dangerous practices.

8. Try to avoid stealing.

9. Try to avoid lying and cheating.

10. Try to respect the rights of the majority.

If a reflection of diversity is needed to escape ACLU wrath, maybe the Eightfold Path of Buddhism could be squeezed in somewhere between the Commandments and Bill of Rights.

 The Eightfold Path of Buddhism

Who, whether Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Atheist, or "other," could take issue with these? In all probability, not even the ACLU would challenge this posting, because it is from texts not recognized by Christians as being divinely inspired. That would probably make such a posting okay in the eyes of the ACLU.

AND THE CASE FOR A "CHRISTIAN" AMERICA

The Golden Rule is Universal

It is noteworthy that only the Christian version of the Golden Rule translates into the proactive "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Do good to others! Don't just refrain from hurting others or treating them badly. Don't just wish good upon others and possess a good heart, but actually do good to others -- as you would have them do to yourself. This subtle difference is quite significant, for it comprises the primary differentiation between Christian philosophy and that of most other religious doctrine. Christianity is not only a religion, but a moral principle and philosophy. When practiced, whether as religious doctrine or a secular code of conduct, it provides a basis for individual morality and the foundation for the establishment of just government. It is this which might be referred to as the core of the American national character, as a "Christian nation" -- a "religious" nation and people uniquely tolerant of other belief systems.

It is also worth mentioning that "doing good to others" does not necessarily entail aggressively helping others when they neither need nor desire help. Projecting and promoting good will is always desirable, of course. But, most often, the best way to do good is to leave others alone to enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" without interference. Interference is seldom helpful, thus aggressive "do-gooders" (such as the ACLU as well as overzealous Christians), are often found in gross violation of the Golden Rule -- often without realizing it in their zeal "to do good." Leave others alone, if you would be left alone, but provide active help when and where it it needed -- yes, go out of your way to provide it when it is needed. But teach and preach only to the receptive -- never dictate. The ability to coerce, whether by threat or act, is not a virtue.

In making the case for a "Christian America," this writer is by no means implying that we are measuring up in any significant way. We should be a Christian nation, practicing the the Christian Golden Rule as both domestic and foreign policy, but we seem to have lost our way somewhere. Our moral compass has been transformed into a perversion of the Christian ideal. We have become a hedonistic society, in spite of the majority who profess Christianity — mainly, because the majority no longer rules. Coercion, at home and abroad, is our national pastime. Our cup of good will overruneth over with weapons of death and destruction. As the world's preeminent arms merchant, we help spread conflict and suffering far and wide -- and we don't hesitate to use those implements of war ourselves -- and seldom for good and just cause. We dispense our peculiar brand of "saving grace" throughout the world, always declaring the best of intentions, with bombs and missiles -- hardly a manifestation of a nation practicing the Golden Rule.

"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew (7:12)

Not only do we not practice the Christian Golden Rule as national policy, we don't even come close to practicing any other version of the Golden Rule.

as expressed by some of the world's other major religions...

Brahmanism: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." (Mahabharata: 5, 1517)

Buddhism: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga: 5, 18)

Confucian: "Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you!" (Analects: 15, 23)
or -- "Treat others as thou wouldst, thyself, be treated"

Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." (Sunnah)

Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow-men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." (Talmud: Shabbat, 31 a.)

Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." (T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien)

Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself." (Dadistan-I-Dinik: 94, 5)

(Taken from The Great Quotations, compiled by George Seldes)

For Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists: "Ethical rationalism is the application of epistemological rationalism to the field of morals. The primary moral ideas (good, duty) are held to be innate, and the first principles of morals (e.g., the Golden Rule) are deemed self-evident. It is further claimed that the possession of reason provides an adequate motive for moral conduct." (Encyclopedia Brittanica, CD1997 [emphasis added])

12/22/1999

Back to Top of Page

A SHORT DISSERTATION ON SCHOOL PRAYER
by William R. Carr

In addition to the Pledge of Allegiance each morning, little heathens of my generation were subjected to a prayer in school every day before being allowed to "fall to" on our lunch. We didn't mind -- it never occurred to us to mind. We weren't forced to recite the prayer. The teacher led the prayer with closed eyes and bowed head -- looking up only if some disrespectful varmint was causing a stir. I can remember that little prayer well.

"God is great. God is good. Now let us thank Him for our food. Amen."

Almost all the students, being from Christian households, followed along dutifully. The rest of us usually had enough respect to remain silent while gazing wistfully down at our lunch bags or pails. Others looked about the room from beneath bowed head. Only rarely did somebody seize upon the opportunity to sail a paper airplane or launch a spit-ball at the back of some bowed neck.

I'm quite sure that the ACLU would be outraged if teachers "forced" such a prayer on little children in public schools today. After all, children are no longer just little heathens like many of us were -- today some start school as full-blown young agnostics, atheists, and humanists. Of course, many these days belong to non-Christian faiths as well. A few have already been coached on how they "should be offended" by prayer and other religious expression. Christian prayer, they have learned, is an abomination unto them. Today, intolerance for religious expression is actually taught to some children in the name of "religious tolerance" and "respect for diversity."

In spite of a rather irreverent upbringing, thanks to an agnostic father, it never occurred to me to object to our school prayer. From a very early age, I instinctively knew (or I'd been taught) that to do so would be disrespectful of the beliefs of others. Nor did my father ever express any concern at the idea of prayer in school. As for prayer in general, he merely said it was "pretty presumptuous to ask for special favors from someone reputed to be all-knowing and omnipotent." But while he may have been short on Christian rhetoric, and "down" on all churches (except the Unitarian church, in those days), Christian conduct and a Puritan ethic, born of his own Christian upbringing, were his iron-clad, though unspoken, laws.

Personally, though never reborn, doused with holy water, or dunked bodily into a cleansing brine, I'm grateful that I had to sit through those prayers. It did us little heathens good to be exposed to the idea of being thankful for our food. I wish my children had been required to sit through such prayers when they were in school. They might have learned that giving thanks and being thankful is not strictly a Sunday activity.

Why shouldn't our children learn at the earliest possible age to be humbly thankful for the abundance most enjoy? Why shouldn't all children (whatever their faith, or lack thereof) be exposed to the humble thankfulness of the faithful? Who is hurt thereby? Certainly, even agnostics, atheists, and secular humanists of all stripes, ought to be thankful for the bounty God ("Nature," Uncle Sam, Archer Daniels Midland, or at least "somebody"), has provided.

Many of today's cosmopolitans, of course, have considerable trouble articulating the word God. They're too proud to speak that word. Their eyes glaze over when they hear it, they get uncomfortable, and it tends to get it stuck in their craw if they are ever called upon to articulate it. (Most don't even use the word when cussing any more. They prefer the more colorful and chic four-letter words.) But I suggest they just listen in respectful silence, as I did. Listening to that simple prayer did me no discernible harm. In fact, it helped me realize that perhaps I too should be just a little thankful for our bounty.

"God IS great. God is good. Now let us thank Him for our food. Amen!"

Back to Top of Page

And My Religious Awakening

Return to Pridger's Index