Power of the State vs. Religious Beliefs

In the past week, numerous stories dealing with the conflict between the rule of law - the power of the state - and people's religious beliefs have been reported. This kind of thing is not new. And, this week probably will not be the last time such news makes news.

-- In Minnesota a 13 year old boy is refusing chemotherapy, which medical experts believe will effect a cure for him, and desires to follow a more "traditional", non-scientific based healing regimen based on his family's religious beliefs; the family follows the teachings of the Nemenhah Band.
-- In Wisconsin, a mother is on trial for reckless homicide because she refused diabetes treatment for her daughter and chose instead to rely on prayer; she is following the teachings of the Unleavened Bread Ministries.
-- In West Virginia, a mother is challenging the school immunization law calling it a sacrilege; she descsribes her belief system as "Bapticostal," a combination of Baptist and Pentecostal teachings.
-- In Nigeria, a religious leader is on trial for killing 110 children in attempting to exorcise them of witchcraft.

Should people be allowed the right to follow their religious beliefs without any intervention of the state? If so, does anything done in the name of some religion go? If not, at what point do the interests of the state trump the religious beliefs of a person and who determines when that should occur?

It seems more obvious when a person's religious beliefs causes the death of someone else, but, what would happen if a religious leader calls for the overthrow of the government because of his religious beliefs? Or calls for sexual intercourse with 12 year olds? Or calls for the establishment of 'group marriages' instead of the traditional view?

Where do you weigh in on this issue?

Just a Little Talk

In the aftermath of the designated "National Day of Prayer" and the attendant controversy generated this year, Pew Forum put forth statistics on the patterns of prayer in America. The results show the % of people who say that they pray at least once a day with 58% of all Americans saying they do so.

As you might imagine, older folks prayed more than younger folks, poorer folks prayed more than richer folks, women prayed more than men, and folfs in particularistic church groups prayed more than those unaffiliated with any church. That is a general overview of the results which can be found at: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=179.

More specifically, there were some surprising results to me.
-- The group with the largest group of daily prayers was the Jehovah's Witness(89%); I would have thought the Muslims would have been at the top. Muslims were 5th at 71%.
-- 48% of people making $100,000 or more prayed daily. I would have thought the % would be lower. 64% of those making less than $30,000 prayed daily. I wopuld have thought it would have been more.
-- 48% of 18-29 year olds prayed daily. I thought this was amazingly high.

As with any poll results there are questions that must be asked. Did people say they prayed daily - when they don't - because they think they should? How is prayer defined? Does shouting out, "Please God; NO!" when a car swerves close to you on the freeway count? Or, must prayer take place in some ritualized form and place to be counted?

Where do you fit in this survey? Do you pray or not? Do any of these results enlighten you about the religious nature of our country?

Conflict of Standards

What can be more Americana than a high school senior escorting his girl to her Senior Prom? In Findlay Ohio, at the Heritage Christian School, such a scenario may be classic Americana, but it is also forbidden.

According to the rules of the Heritage Christian School, no student can dance, listen to rock-n-roll, kiss or hold hands. In the HCS student handbook, rock music is characterized as "part of the counterculture which seeks to implant seeds of rebellion in young people's hearts and minds." Every student must sign a statement of cooperation with the rules, regulations, and standards of the school.

Now, Tyler Frost, a 17 year old Senior, who has attended the school since kindergarten and whose grandmother teaches there, is warned that he will be suspended if he escorts his girl friend to her Senior Prom at Findlay High School, a public school. If suspended, he will not be allowed to attend classes or march in his school's graduation ceremony. He will receive a diploma, though only after he takes his final exams. Further, if he is involved with alcohol or sex at the prom, he will be expelled.

I do not agree with the standards governing HCS, but I do defend their right to enact such standards. The school's principal consulted a school committee made up of church members, which must have some regulatory role at the school. This committee made the decision to suspend Frost if he attended the dance. From the story I saw, the HCS principal said, "In life, we constantly make decisions whether we are going to please self or please God. (Frost) chose one path, and the school committee chose the other."

I question why the young man and his family were willing to sign the statement agreeing to abide by the school's rules at the beginning of the school year and now want the rules to be waived for them. I cannot imagine agreeing to let my son sign such a document or attend such a school, but, if I did, I would have a hard time complaining about the enforcement of the rules. I also question how HCS will know what further rules the young man might break unless they have spies at the dance.

This news broke on Friday. The young man went to the dance on Saturday and is now, on Monday, suspended for the rest of the academic year. So, who is right in this confrontation and why? Who would you defend and why? Should you want to read more, please consult: http://www.thecourier.com.