Divine Non-Intervention
May. 30th, 2013 08:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
captainsblogThe very photo-spammy post from the baseball event got put up on my mostly-dead Mets Blog earlier today. There are those who may believe that only God Himself could grant the Mets a three-game winning streak over the hated Yankees (and be six four innings away from an outright sweep as I write this), but I'll leave that to the sports section. Instead, I want to put out some words from my youth that are still burned into my brain from multiple formative-year repetitions, mostly between 7 and 8:30 in the morning when young people are so impressionable:
We will now have a moment of silence, to enable those individuals, who wish to ask for God's blessings on this day's activities, to do so in accordance with their own beliefs.
I heard that every morning during homeroom, in both junior and senior high, through the squawkbox on the classroom wall. The earliest of those years was 1971, close to a decade after the Supreme Court's prohibition on school prayer in the Engel v. Vitale case. Somehow, the modern-day condemnation of that decision hadn't reached our little ears, and I never felt I was missing out on anything. As the saying went, "as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public school." Just not teacher-led, faith-specific, indoctrinational prayer- which is exactly what the Fundies miss so much.
Our moments of silence seemed a decent compromise- an opportunity without an obligation. In all the years the principals and student leader types invoked those words, I never heard a religious person complain about it being too non-sectarian, or a non-believing person complain about it being too religious. We also had brief religious invocations at school board meetings and graduations, but these, too, were kept egalitarian and intentionally vague- rotated mostly between the two faiths that spoke for probably three quarters of the kids between them (conservative-to-reform Judaism and Roman Catholicism). The G-word was fine, the J-word wasn't. Again, nobody on either side ever seemed especially offended.
Then again, that was back when reasonable people ran both major political parties and could, and did, work together in matters of mutual benefit. Compromise was not a fightin' word, and the extremists hadn't taken hold of either set of reins. Three years and change after God was innocuously invoked at my own graduation, Ronald Reagan got swept into power, largely through the political power of the so-called Moral Majority. They longed for the good old days of keepin' slaves, blamin' Jews and thanking Jesus for giving them the God-given right to do it- and little by little, they've encroached on the Wall of Separation that now, in some places, isn't much more than a less than rabbit-proof fence. (The Great State of Texas has gone as far as editing out much of Thomas Jefferson's contributions to the "founding fathers," on account of his strong pro-separation stance.)
Jefferson's secularly spiritual descendants are not taking this lying down (prostrate or otherwise). The ACLU and other organizations actively monitor the in-your-faciness of some of the Fundies, especially around sporting events and graduations, and a fairly devout atheistic friend of mine here and on Facebook reported earlier today that her son's elementary-age ceremony has a prayer scheduled as part of the event. Since they told the kids in advance, I'm assuming this is something where active participation is strongly encouraged, if not outright required. She's planning on reporting the school to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which takes a pretty fundamentalist view of its own about incursions over the Wall.
They can go too far, I think. Stripping sacred music from December concerts goes too far, as do efforts to teach about religion, objectively and inclusively, as parts of history or literature courses. (That's not to say that Fundies can't use such courses for biased proslyetizing efforts- and at least one provider of such "curriculum" has been charged with doing just that.) I learned much of what I know about other Christian faiths- as well as about Judiasm, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and even Zoroastrianism- in my 9th grade secular social studies class. No children were harmed by the exposure to any of it, best as I can tell, and nobody complained.
In a nation where a majority of Republicans believe our United Church of Christ-belonging President to be a sekrit Muslim, I long for the days when we could all, somehow, get along in spite of our differences. Today, though, I suspect that hope is right up there with God creating a rock so big He can't lift it:
Answer: Sure He can, but He'll aim it at Fred Phelps's head right after He does it.
We will now have a moment of silence, to enable those individuals, who wish to ask for God's blessings on this day's activities, to do so in accordance with their own beliefs.
I heard that every morning during homeroom, in both junior and senior high, through the squawkbox on the classroom wall. The earliest of those years was 1971, close to a decade after the Supreme Court's prohibition on school prayer in the Engel v. Vitale case. Somehow, the modern-day condemnation of that decision hadn't reached our little ears, and I never felt I was missing out on anything. As the saying went, "as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public school." Just not teacher-led, faith-specific, indoctrinational prayer- which is exactly what the Fundies miss so much.
Our moments of silence seemed a decent compromise- an opportunity without an obligation. In all the years the principals and student leader types invoked those words, I never heard a religious person complain about it being too non-sectarian, or a non-believing person complain about it being too religious. We also had brief religious invocations at school board meetings and graduations, but these, too, were kept egalitarian and intentionally vague- rotated mostly between the two faiths that spoke for probably three quarters of the kids between them (conservative-to-reform Judaism and Roman Catholicism). The G-word was fine, the J-word wasn't. Again, nobody on either side ever seemed especially offended.
Then again, that was back when reasonable people ran both major political parties and could, and did, work together in matters of mutual benefit. Compromise was not a fightin' word, and the extremists hadn't taken hold of either set of reins. Three years and change after God was innocuously invoked at my own graduation, Ronald Reagan got swept into power, largely through the political power of the so-called Moral Majority. They longed for the good old days of keepin' slaves, blamin' Jews and thanking Jesus for giving them the God-given right to do it- and little by little, they've encroached on the Wall of Separation that now, in some places, isn't much more than a less than rabbit-proof fence. (The Great State of Texas has gone as far as editing out much of Thomas Jefferson's contributions to the "founding fathers," on account of his strong pro-separation stance.)
Jefferson's secularly spiritual descendants are not taking this lying down (prostrate or otherwise). The ACLU and other organizations actively monitor the in-your-faciness of some of the Fundies, especially around sporting events and graduations, and a fairly devout atheistic friend of mine here and on Facebook reported earlier today that her son's elementary-age ceremony has a prayer scheduled as part of the event. Since they told the kids in advance, I'm assuming this is something where active participation is strongly encouraged, if not outright required. She's planning on reporting the school to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which takes a pretty fundamentalist view of its own about incursions over the Wall.
They can go too far, I think. Stripping sacred music from December concerts goes too far, as do efforts to teach about religion, objectively and inclusively, as parts of history or literature courses. (That's not to say that Fundies can't use such courses for biased proslyetizing efforts- and at least one provider of such "curriculum" has been charged with doing just that.) I learned much of what I know about other Christian faiths- as well as about Judiasm, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and even Zoroastrianism- in my 9th grade secular social studies class. No children were harmed by the exposure to any of it, best as I can tell, and nobody complained.
In a nation where a majority of Republicans believe our United Church of Christ-belonging President to be a sekrit Muslim, I long for the days when we could all, somehow, get along in spite of our differences. Today, though, I suspect that hope is right up there with God creating a rock so big He can't lift it:
Answer: Sure He can, but He'll aim it at Fred Phelps's head right after He does it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-05-31 02:25 am (UTC)That said, I think it's absurd not to teach about religion; it's a big part of most cultures and a major influence on politics. Even religious schools don't necessarily do too well there, since they tend to focus on their own religion; I went to Catholic school through 12th grade, but I didn't even really understand about non-Catholic Christianity till I went to high school in a lower income part of town, where a number of my classmates had different beliefs. (Made for some interesting religion classes. "This Mary assumption thing, is that Catholic dogma? I didn't hear about that in my church.") College, where the instructors actually avoided saying things that favored particular beliefs, was stunning to me. Religion was never the focus of my primary/secondary education (we had very good science classes, learned about evolution, got good, sensible sex ed, none of the stereotypes people have), but it did feel oddly freeing to have no pressure at all. (I really wanted to take The Bible as Literature for my pre-1800's lit course, my last requirement for graduation, but it kept filling up too damn fast. I ended up with The Canterbury Tales.)
no subject
Date: 2013-06-01 03:02 pm (UTC)I have no objection to secular social studies / comparative religion / sacred texts as literature / etc. Religion is absolutely an important part of our world.
But I don't agree that a moment of silence is an opportunity without obligation. If you wish to have a moment of silence in your church, or in the privacy of your bedroom when you arise, fine. If I'm in your home and you want to say Grace, or if you're in mine and quietly bow your head for a moment while your food gets cold, that's fine too. But the public practice of insisting on a moment of silence so that those who are so inclined may talk to their imaginary friends while the rest of us give mute deference is an abuse of privilege.
Public displays of religiosity, including "a moment of silence, to enable those individuals, who wish to ask for God's blessings" are just a way for the majority religion (which is probably not yours and certainly not mine) to proclaim its dominance.
Worse, it's not even good Christianity. See the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew. To Jesus, public piety was all about seeking social advantage. God hears the prayers said privately, in secret.
Sorry about your Mets, though. They haven't got a prayer.