First Amendment Issues

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads: "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." To say that these words have been much debated in our nation is an understatement.

Because of the fundamental rights contained in this amendment, passions over legal decisions based on it run high. Supreme Court rulings on such issues as school prayer, moments of silence in school, inclusion of Bible readings, prayers at high school commencements, displays of nativity scenes on public property, and displays of the Ten Commandments on public property, among others are based on this amendment. Citizen protest against the Supreme court rulings have also been based on this amendment.

Legal scholars and religious experts have argued over what the framers of the Constitution meant when this amendment was proposed and ratified. More important to ask now, however, is: What does this amendment mean to us as citizens in a religiously diverse nation? Some would argue that the Constitution provided freedom for religious groups to be part of the public square not to guarantee freedom from religion in the public square. And, thus, if Christians wanted to lead prayers or read scriptures as part of the morning school-wide announcements in public schools, for example, they should be allowed to do so. That may sound good to you, but what about the rights of the myriad other religious groups in the community? Should Muslim students and Jewish students also lead prayers in the same way? If the Ten Commandments are displayed on the walls of a public school classroom, should The Laws of Manu also be displayed?

In the April 2008 issue of Report From The Capital, a publication of the Baptist Joint Committee, comes a story about a case to be considered by the Supreme Court in the 2008-2009 term that illustrates this dilemma. Pleasant Grove City, Utah allowed the Fraternal Order of Eagles to donate a Ten Commandments Monument in the 1960s that is displayed in a public park. Now, a group, based in Salt lake City, called SUMMUM is asking the city to display a monument listing its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum." The same deal would be applied. The Summum group would donate the monument and the city would put it in the public park next the Ten Commandment monument. The city refused. The governmental officials contend they could chose which monuments to display and which not to display. So, now, the Supreme Court gets to decide.

What do you think? If one monument relating to Judaism and Christianity is displayed, should any other religious group be allowed the same privilege? Should no religious group have a display on public property? Should the community be allowed to make the decision? If so, what does that say about the rights of groups that are in the minority in that area?

Stayed tuned. This issue will not go away.

A Touch of Aquinas

From an article in the July 24, 2007 Christian Century written by Ellen Chary and entitled "Happy Pursuits" is this quotation from Thomas Aquinas:

God is good;
The cosmos is God’s creation;
The creation is unified because each part belongs to and contributes to the whole and is in turn promoted, sustained, and perfected by the rest; …
As we become the very best creatures that we can become, we are not only obedient to God’s destiny for us, but we are also celebrating our own goodness in God; …
[F]eeling good is the result of doing good in ordinary and common choices of daily life; …
[The] key to happiness is the ability to love well even in face of tragedies of life.

I was most taken by the final two statements.

Too often in our culture, feeling good is the result of extraordinary events or external sensations - things outside of our normal experience. Instead, said Aquinas, we feel good when we make good choices in the common situations of our lives.

Again, our happiness is something we seek from others or from things external to us. Aquinas disputes that and asserts that our ability to love - to show our love to others - even in the face of the tragic circumstances of life.

This is deep wisdom - the kind that takes us many years of living to be able to appreciate.

The Dangerous, and Dismissive, Power of Labels

Catherine Wessinger, Professor of the History of Religions, and the Rev. H. James Yamauchi, S.J., Professor of Arts and Sciences, at Loyola University New Orleans, has an essay on Religious Dispatches, found at http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Content.aspx?Page=AR&Id=219, on the use of the term "cult" as applied to religious groups on the margins of society, specifically referencing the Branch Davidians and the FLDS.

Professor Wessinger does not argue that there were not situations in each group that should have been investigated by the proper authorities. Rather, she believes that the use of the term "cult" affected how law enforcement officials saw the people and responded to them. As she writes: "The word “cult” originally referred simply to an organized system of worship; it is still used in that descriptive manner by scholars (especially in the study of the ancient world). Since the 1970s the word “cult” has been used in popular discourse as a pejorative term for religions people fear, or hate, or do not want to recognize as a “real religion.” The use of the word “cult” can also be seen to imply that it is only in small, unconventional religious groups that believers commit hurtful and illegal actions—socially dominant religious groups are somehow let off the hook, as if their members never transgress in this way. Use of the word conveys what sociologist James T. Richardson has called “the myth of the omnipotent leader” and the “myth of the passive, brainwashed follower,” both of which dehumanize believers. Moreover, once the label “cult” has been applied it tends to stick, and it can inhibit careful investigation of what is going on inside a religious group and its interactions with members of society; broadly speaking, it is assumed that people “know” what goes on in a “cult.”"

Further, "I do not argue here that there were not problems within both communities that were and are of legitimate concern to law enforcement authorities. I argue that the public perception of small religious groups and their behaviors as deviant is intensified when the “cult” stereotype is applied, and that has led law enforcement authorities to take actions against both the Branch Davidians and the YFZ community that could potentially, and in the Branch Davidian case did, cause harm to children instead of saving them from harm."

When a group is labeled a cult, mainstream, normal folks can dismiss them with a shrug and a smirk. After all, we all know all there is to know about cults. And, since it is a cult, then, any group of law enforcement officials are justified in doing whatever it takes to rid the community of them. Being labeled a cult can legitimize any sort of behavior toward the marginalized religious groups.

But, then, we use other labels in similar ways. If your religious understanding does not match mine, I can call you a "heretic," a "fundamentalist," or a "liberal who does not believe the Bible." Once I have you pegged, I no longer need to listen to you. I know all I need to know about you. Because I have put you in my own sorting box, I can say and think anything I want about you.

We often label others on the basis of a quick glance and a momentary encounter. In the grocery store today, I saw a fellow wearing cowboy boots, blue jeans, a "trucker hat" and a T-shirt that touted the "Redneck Union." Obviously, he is a redneck. As the holder of a PhD in theology, what more do I need to know about him? I could dismiss him as unworthy of my time; I could forget that he, too, is a human being with all of the hopes and fears that I have.

Funny thing about labels. Just as often as you or I may be tempted to apply them to others; others pin them on us. I speak here with direct experience, since I have been labeled by others quite a few times and dismissed as unworthy.

Labels are dangerous things. Be cautious in using them.