God vs. Copyright vs. Public School Teacher... AGAIN

The previous post in this blog was about public school officials who changed a famous song, God Bless the USA, to remove the word "God." This, of course, is a violation of U.S. Copyright law. But it's also just plain silly that the school somehow believed it inappropriate to utter "God" in a public school. Our history is rich with references to God and it is clear our Founders had no intention of removing God from public life when they wrote the Constitution. (Thomas Jefferson, from whose letters we get the phrase "Separation of church and state," and who is typically regarded as one of the "least Christian" of our Founders, even approved the use of the Bible and the Watts Hymnal for practice reading in Washington, D.C. public schools.)

Now another similar issue has arisen in Albemarle County’s Broadus Wood Elementary School (Virginia). A 5th-grade school teacher wanted to use the song We Are the World in a school performance. But, apparently thinking that "God" may not be mentioned in school, she altered this line:

We are all a part of God’s great big family

so that it became this:

We are all a part of one great big family

And she dug a little deeper in verse three of the song, changing this line:

As God has shown us by turning stones to bread

to this one:

We can’t let them suffer; no we cannot turn away

One has to wonder what this same teacher would do if students were studying the Declaration of Independence. Would she change "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" to simply say "endowed with certain inalienable rights"? Our Founders knew that if our rights come from man rather than God, then man (or a teacher) can take our rights away.

Read the full story on the site below:

http://bearingdrift.com/2012/04/18/worldly-albemarle-county-teacher-deletes-god-lyric-from-we-are-the-world/

Banning Heaven from Street Names - Is That In the Constitution?

People across the nation were inspired by some of the heroic deeds of the first responders, as well as other police and fire personnel and various volunteers after the attacks in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. One Brooklyn firehouse lost seven firemen on that day, and they naturally want to honor them. The city named a nearby street for them: "Seven in Heaven Way."

You readers know what's coming next, right? An atheist group is complaining to the city about the sign, demanding it be changed. "Heaven" is a Christian concept, they say. Well, that's partly right. Heaven, or similar concepts using other words, are part of many religions. But Heaven is not part of atheism.

According to an article in New American:
Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission noted, "There are cities that have religious connotations in their names. Why not a street. Do they want us to rename Los Angeles, Corpus Christi, and St. Joseph?” Added Land,  "In a country where 85 percent of the people say they are Christian or claim to be Christian, should it be surprising that you name cities and streets with religious terminology?”

That makes sense to me. Our Constitution specifies (in the Bill of Rights) that Congress may not make a law establishing a religion, and the provision is being applied to our states as well after a Supreme Court decision. But clearly a street sign requires no state law to be passed; it is a decision that cities make for a variety of reasons, and such decision do not require statutes to back them up. Even if they did, there is a difference between recognizing religion and establishing a religion. We have "Armed Forces Day" each year, but every citizen is not required to be in the military, for example. And many, if not most, cities have a form of Martin Luther King on a street name (sometimes on several). But the residents of those cities are not all black.

Read more here:

Atheists Complain Over NYC Street Sign Honoring Fallen 9-11 Firemen

Jefferson Bible: Newly Restored, Still Misunderstood

USA Today reports that the famous Jefferson Bible is being restored. This Bible contained the story of Jesus' life in chronological order, but it left out some of the miracles and resurrection. This fact is presented in the article, and later in the article it is said that Jefferson never sold it because he didn't want the give support to the claims that he was not a Christian. Those facts are probably all true, but they don't tell the whole story. And by not telling the rest of the story, they leave a false impression. It also leaves the impression that Jefferson left out all the miracles, even though there is evidence that some were originally included.

Jefferson was not an ideal Christian by my personal definition, but he called himself a Christian. And in the case of this Bible, his goal was not (apparently) to deny the miracles or resurrection, but was instead to make the Bible more understandable and acceptable for a primer for the Indians - to help show the Indians Jesus' teachings. In today's common concept of Jefferson - that he wanted a complete separation of church and state - this seems very odd indeed. Why would a President and Founding Father, if he believed in keeping religion far from government, create a Bible to give to the Native Americans of his time?

Read more about Jefferson's edition of the Bible here:
The Jefferson Bible

Also, look at the University of Virginia's Jefferson Library (once on the page, search for the word "indians"):
About the Jefferson Bible, from University of Virginia

Invite Me Anywhere, Just Not to Church

The First Amendment seems so clear to me. First, the wording is clear and concise. Second, there are ample examples of the interpretations of the men who wrote it to demonstrate what they thought about it. Surely one demand of the First Amendment is NOT to allow all manner of speech as long as it is not religious.

Pocono Mountain School District is being sued over a supposed First Amendment issue. Students are allowed to pass out to their classmates all sorts of invitations to events. Halloween parties are fine, birthday parties are fine, Valentine's dances are fine, even some paid events are fine. But a student was barred from handing out an invitation to a free Christmas party at a church.

Many, if not most, public schools have become overly nervous about any hint of religious speech or actions within school property. The blame the constraints of the First Amendment, which is not accurate but is widely believed. But surely some of these officials must see that when you allow students to share invitations to all events except religious ones, that is hostility to religion more than neutrality to religion. This is more obvious when you consider that the handing out was done during non-instructional time before classes.

This blog is peppered with examples of our Founders supporting religion in public life and in public schools. The few Founders who may have been resistant to such support would still have insisted on neutrality.

Our country went through some troubling times when people with colored skin were treated different. Sometimes Jews were treated differently; sometimes Irish were treated differently. Now it may be a time when religious people are treated differently.

Read the story below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1309388

Day of Prayer Declaration in 1622

There are several examples on this blog of our founders' declarations for days of fasting and prayer, many from around the time of our Declaration of Independence and later years. But it was the continuation of a tradition that started long before that.

Consider Plymouth Plantation, when there was a severe lack of rain in 1622. Governor Bradford had no federal government to look to for assistance. Instead he looked to the leader that he and his people wanted to be in charge. He wrote this declaration:

"I may not here omit how, notwithstand all their great pains and industry, and the great hopes of a large crop, the Lord seemed to blast, and take away the same, and to threaten further and more sore famine unto them. By a great drought which continued from the third week in May, till about the middle of July, without any rain and with great heat for the most part, insomuch as the corn began to wither away though it was set with fish, the moisture whereof helped it much. Yet at length it began to languish sore, and some of the drier grounds were parched like withered hay, part whereof was never recovered. Upon which they set apart a solemn day of humiliation, to seek the Lord by humble and fervent prayer, in this great distress. And He was pleased to give them a gracious and speedy answer, both to their own and the Indians' admiration that lived amongst them. For all the morning, and greatest part of the day, it was clear weather and very hot, and not a cloud or any sign of rain to be seen; yet toward evening it began to overcast, and shortly after to rain with such sweet and gentle showers as gave them cause of rejoicing and blessing God..."

This was before the Constitution was written, so there was no cry of "separation of church and state." Indeed, the framers who wrote the Constitution took care to assure the states that the new federal government would not interfere with such practices and beliefs by the states.

As found in "Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647", by William Bradford, Samuel Eliot Morison.

Graduation Ceremonies in Churches Need Protection?

You can find other posts on this blog about controversy over churches serving as the venue for high school graduations and some other functions. Often, one group or another will take the matter to court to try to block the use of the church. Sometimes it has worked and other times the school has succeeded with their planned use.

There are some very good reasons that schools have chosen to use churches in these stories. Generally the churches have offered ample seating capacity at a price lower then secular venues in the same areas. Often the churches have comforts not found in high school facilities, such as air conditioning, more comfortable seating with a better overall view, better parking, better sound systems, and large-screen monitors.

That seems logical, and would be considered a good business decision in most circumstances. Perhaps if you are new to this blog, you are wondering what the objection could be. Almost without exception, the issue raised is a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state." As a reminder, the "separation" phrase comes from a letter of Thomas Jefferson. It is not a phrase contained in our legal founding documents, but rather was intended as a convenient metaphor to describe one aspect of the First Amendment. That amendment covers religion, and in fact the first two short clauses are called the Religion Clauses. The first of those two is called the Establishment Clause, and the second is called the Free Exercise clause. The whole First Amendment is:

"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."

Clearly the word "separation" is not found there. The context of this is a limitation on the actions of the Federal Government ("Congress"). Many believe the 14th Amendment places the same limitation on the state governments, in that it guarantees that the rights of a citizen under the constitution may not be abridged by any state.

In all of that, where do we justify not allowing a high school to hold a graduation ceremony inside a church facility? Does that establish a state law? Does is prohibit the free exercise of one's religion?

The Liberty Counsel has stepped in now to help various schools in Georgia that may have been threatened with legal action for planning to hold graduations in churches. Matt Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, said:


"Clearly, public schools can use religious venues -- churches and other venues -- just like anyone else [and can] make a common-sense decision based upon size, location and costs," he contends. "The First Amendment does not interfere with that decision."

Read more below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1253638

Alexander Hamilton - Our Rights Come from the Divine

Alexander Hamilton was the first United States Secretary of Treasury, and was a signer of the U.S. Constitution. We hear it said often (just do a Google search) that our Founders were mostly atheists and that religious faith played no real part in our founding. That is easily argued against by perusing the writings of these men.

The University of Chicago has some fine web pages, including a series of Hamilton's writings. On the page covering Feb. 23, 1775, we find this quote:

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

Read more on the University's site:

Right of Revolution

No Christianity Allowed in Home Schooling

The New Hampshire Supreme Court just declared that a home-schooled child must now be sent to public schools. It did not start as an uncommon story. The child's parents are divorced. Custodial Mom was doing the home schooling, Dad preferred public school.

Often divorced parents don't agree on how children should be treated in any number of ways. It would not be too surprising to hear a judge side with the notion that a home-schooled kid was too sheltered, or did not get a quality education. In this case, though, the student was doing very well academically and all agreed she was happy and doing well socially.

No, this time the objection was that the mom was too "Christian" in her approach. The court said:

"It would be remarkable if a ten year old child who spends her school time with her mother and the vast majority of her other time with her mother would seriously consider adopting any other religious point of view. Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to the counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

That statement assumes that the courts have the right to say the custodial parent does not have the right to teach her own religious beliefs to her child. Can someone point to the clause in the U.S. or New Hampshire constitution that gives the state the right to determine what is a proper religious upbringing (assuming no laws are being broken and no harm comes to the child). In fact, the U.S. Constitution specifically says it is not the government's business at all, which is expressed by saying that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Read more below:

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/religious-freedom/mom%E2%80%99s-homeschooling-views-work-for-her-child-but-not-for-nh-judge/

Do We Learn Both Sides of Our Country's Founding?

I learned in school about a few of our nation's religious roots. At that time public schools taught about the religious motivations of the Pilgrims, for example. But a lot of the religious underpinnings of our founding were not mentioned. That's probably appropriate, given the sheer amount of data that had to be covered to catch me up on all those years between Columbus and the 20th Century.

There is more to the story, and my reading in more recent years has been very educational. It filled out a lot of the color of our history. I have seen where our first Congress met. I stood in the room and had a sense of awe at the history that room held. Now that I know the Founders opened their first Congress with prayer and a Bible reading, it colors it in a bit more, not so much as a religious story, but to show the importance the Founders gave to their tasks. The work was too much for the minds of even these smart folks. They needed God's help.

Dr. William Bennett, former Secretary of Education, has written several books about the country and its history. One of his recent efforts is the American Patriot's Almanac. In the revised edition he added a section titled "Faith and the Founders." Here is a nice summary from that a paragraph in that chapter:

"The Founders or this country were mostly Christians. They drew deeply from the wellsprings of the Judeo-Christian tradition for the underlying philosophy of the republic. Histories that ignore this side of the American story leave out a crucial part. As the scholar Michael Novak has written in his book On Two Wings, 'a purely secular interpretation of the founding runs aground on massive evidence.'"

Read more in the book shown here. It is a good value.

Martin Luther King, Jr - Reverend

The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was both on January 15, 1929, and this year his federal holiday falls on January 17. I think most schools talk about King; many cities have streets named for him, and we hear about him on television often, especially around this time of the year.

I have been casually observing the manner of addressing King within the media. He held a doctoral degree and a divinity degree. In manuals of style, the correct form of address for such a person would be "The Reverend Doctor..." However, the common form I hear is "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." His widow has declared that King was most proud of the title Reverend.

But in news stories he is not addressed the way he would have preferred. I found the following numbers when I did a search on Google for these various forms of his name, searching only in the "News" category:

"Dr. Martin Luther King" - 3,060 results
"Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King" - 2 results
"Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King" -  25 results
"Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King" - 279 results

It is almost certain appropriate to remember that "Reverend" should be attached to his name. In his public work he was outspoken about religious roots of his beliefs and teaching. Consider a famous event in his life, which his front porch was bombed while his family was at home. King rushed into the home to learn their fate and found them safe. There was a very angry mom of King supporters in his front yard, many with weapons. Reporters on the scene were being blocked from departing and had reason to fear for their safety.

King walked onto the porch and said, in part:

"Don’t get your weapons. If you have weapons, take them home. He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword. Remember that is what Jesus said. We are not advocating violence. We want to love our enemies. I want you to love our enemies. Be good to them. This is what we must live by. We must meet hate with love.’”

When the crowd of several hundred was silent, he continued, “I did not start this boycott. I was asked by you to serve as your spokesman. I want it to be known the length and breadth of this land that if I am stopped, this movement will not stop. If I am stopped, our work will not stop. For what we are doing is right. What we are doing is just. And God is with us.”

(As presented on Rhapsody of Books)

So this year, let's remember that he was not JUST Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He was Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.

Harry Truman - Too Religious to Be a President?

It seems as though a public official can't be deemed as too religious and have a hope of being elected. Or they might at least expect some kind of "religious zealot" theme in articles against them. After all, we have separation of church and state, right?

Did you know that President Truman said a daily prayer? Would it make citizens or the press uneasy if they learned that our current President said a prayer every day?

We have seen school systems forced to remove prayer as a daily routine. What if the students said the same prayer that Truman used? The very idea of students saying a common prayer would not be accepted today, and in our current society I'm not sure I would want students being lead in prayer by their teacher. But what part of the Truman prayer would be objectionable? What part of this would we not want to teach our young folk to believe?

Daily Prayer of President Harry S. Truman:

"Oh! Almighty and Everylasting God, Creator of heaven, earth and the universe, help me to be, to think, to act what is right, because it is right. Make me truthful, honest and honorable in all things. Make me intellectually honest for the sake of right and honor and without thought of reward to me. Give me the ability to be charitable, forgiving and patient with my fellowmen -- help me to understand their motives and their shortcomings -- even as Thou understandest mine! Amen, amen, amen."

As found in the American Patriot's Almanac, by William J. Bennett and John T.E. Cobb, revised edition.

Should Public School Choirs Sing Christmas Music at Christmas?

I have written before about various public school "holiday" concerts where the music directors were forced to not include any Christmas music. The justification is generally a misconception of the so-called "separation of church and state."  The below has a good discussion of this issue. It is written from the perspectives of school personnel who actually have to deal with the issue.

http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/dec/13/religious-music-public-schools-hed-help-hed-help/

Boca Raton: Menorah, Yes - Nativity, No

Sometimes it is easy to understand the logic city officials use to say that no religious displays are permitted on city property. As I have pointed out several times previously, such a prohibition is not required by the Constitution, but some claim that it is.

But in Boca Raton, Florida, it is harder to understand the officials' logic. The do allow religious displays, but do not allow a nativity scene. The officials say that they are giving Christians an equal voice by having displays of Christmas trees and snowflakes. Those are secular symbols, and are displayed in non-Christian environments. Walk around Toyko, for example, and you will see such symbols everywhere. There is no intent to recognize the divinity of Christ; it is simply part of the commercial Christmas buying season. One could use Frosty the Snowman on a similar basis. On the other hand, a Menorah is a religious symbol with Biblical roots.

Read more at the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1250290

Lowe's Renames Christmas Trees to Family Trees - and Back Again

Here is one more example of entities that are afraid to names items accurately. Lowe's, the home improvement store, always sold "Christmas trees" in their stores. But they thought that a bad idea and renamed the products "Family Trees" a few years ago. But the uproar among their customers was so great that they renamed the items "Christmas Trees" again.

Lowe's is a private company and may do whatever they please in such matters. But all the lawsuits against government entities for recognizing one of our nation's oldest holidays may have made Lowe's nervous. Fortunately, they listened to their customers.

Check out the story at Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/familytree.asp

Twas the Night Before a Holiday

The city of Mount Pleasant, Michigan, is located in what many would consider the "Bible Belt." But that does not make it immune to controversy around Christmas time. Their annual "Dickens Christmas Festival" has been renamed this year to the "Dickens Holiday Festival."

It seems that the town plans on promoting this in many places, including the public schools. But in an effort to be "inclusive" the schools have banned the word Christmas. According to an Alliance Defense Fund press release, "The Mount Pleasant School District enacted a policy that purportedly bans the use of the words 'Christmas,' 'Santa,' and 'nativity.'  ADF attorneys explained in the letter that such a policy is unconstitutional as applied to the private speech of students, teachers, and members of the community."

Being the simple-minded person that I am, it seems natural to assume that this festival is named in memory of Charles Dickens' story "A Christmas Carol," which one may see on television in a few different productions this time of year. Would the school ban that story as well? Would it ban a book of collected Dickens' writings if the book included the Christmas Carol?

Is it uncomfortable for school officials and teachers to acknowledge that Christmas is part of the history of our country, and that there are a great many traditions that exist because of Christmas? Or is it better to just hide that fact so those of others faiths are not offended? Do we wish to present the U.S. traditions of Christmas as a huge mistake, and a shame of our history, treating Christmas in the same light as slavery? We perhaps have to recognize that Christmas exists (existed?), but we don't have to be proud of it.

Read more at the link below:

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Home/ADFContent?cid=4320

U.S. HUD Prohibits Christmas in Housing

Our U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is a government agency. And we all know that the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing an official national religion.

So how do we get from those facts to HUD saying that an 85-year-old grandmother may not put an angel on top of the living center's "Christmas" tree because it is too religious? Would that act establish an official national religion? Then there is the rule that residents may use the common room for a party during the Christmas season but they may not call it a Christmas party. Since the party was not necessarily the only event held in that room, and since no person would be required to attend, why not call it a Christmas party?

Read more below:

http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/hud-says-no-angels-christmas-trees-other-religious-symbols

Another Founder's Statement of Faith - Robert Treat Paine

Robert Treat Paine is one of our Founders and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. As such he may have been one of those who some today would say were a bunch of theists and atheists. But he was truly a Christian, at least in his own opinion and perhaps that of his church. Here is his statement of faith:

"I Believe the Bible to be the written word of God & to Contain in it the whole Rule of Faith & manners; I consent to the Assemblys Shorter Chatachism as being Agreable to the Reveal¡¯d Will of God & to contain in it the Doctrines that are According to Godliness. I have for some time had a desire to attend upon the Lords Supper and to Come to that divine Institution of a Dying Redeemer, And I trust I¡¯m now convinced that it is my Duty Openly to profess him least he be ashamed to own me An Other day; I humbly therefore desire that you would receive me into your Communion & Fellowship, & I beg your Prayers for me that Grace may be carried on in my soul to Perfection, & that I may live answerable to the Profession I now make which (God Assisting) I purpose to be the main End of all my Actions."

From The papers of Robert Treat Paine, Volume 3 (Stephen T. Riley, Edward William Hanson, Massachusetts Historical Society)

John Hancock on Religion in Society

We all know that John Hancock was the first signer of the Declaration of Independence (hence the phrase, "Put your 'John Hancock' right on the dotted line."). But did you also recall that he was governor of Massachusetts? And do you know any of the words in his inaugural address as governor?

Here is a sample of his ideas from his inaugural address as Governor of Massachusetts, 1780.

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement that shall not infringe the rights of conscience, which I rejoice to see established by the Constitution on so broad a basis; and if anything can be further done on the same basis for the relief of the public teachers of religion and morality, an order of men greatly useful to their country, and who have particularly suffered in the defense of its rights by the depreciation of currency; as also for the relief of widows and orphans, many of whom have been distressed in the same way, and who are particularly committed by Heaven to the protection of civil rulers, I shall most readily concur with you in every such measure.

A due observation of the Lord's Day is not only important to internal religion, but greatly conducive to the order and benefit of civil society. It speaks to the senses of mankind, and, by a solemn cessation from their common affairs, reminds them of a Deity and the accountableness to the great Lord of all.

As found in:
John Hancock: his book, by Abram English Brown, page 269.

Yale University's Roots - A Christian Mission

Perhaps you are not aware, as I was not, that many of our early educational institutions in the United States were founded with religious missions. Many of these entities are not now associated with religious principles.

One such is Yale University, originally founded in 1701 as Yale College. Its founders intended Yale be an institution where:

"Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences who through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State."

Among the requirements for Yale students was:

"All Scholars shall live religious, godly, and blameless lives according to the rules of God's Word, diligently reading the Holy Scriptures, the fountain of light and truth; and constantly attend upon all the duties of religion, both in public and secret.
"...Every student shall consider the main end of his study to wit to know God in Jesus Christ and answerably to lead a Godly, sober life."

One can be sure that incoming students are not given that requirement today, but it does point out something in our history that is not generally known today.

Learn more at the links below:


http://www.yale.edu/about/history.html

http://chamberscollege.com/LibralArts.html

http://michaelnewdow.com/YaleCollege.htm

Thomas Jefferson - Importance of Freedom of Religion

As you may already know, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in our Constitution. In informal surveys I have done, however, many people this it IS found there. Thomas Jefferson used that phrase in one letter to describe a facet of the First Amendment to the Constitution (the first of the 10 "Bill of Rights"). It was not intended to completely describe the Establishment Clause of the Amendment, which simply says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

In most of his writings on the topic, Jefferson was more likely to use phrases like "freedom of religion" or "religious freedom" to describe the need for a Bill of Rights. Consider the quote below, which is courtesy of the University of Virginia's collection of Jefferson's writings:

"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:317

See more of his writings at:

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm