Keep telling yourself, "It's freedom of, freedom of, freedom of." It's not "freedom from, freedom from, freedom from."
Seriously, it's OF, not FROM.
I try my best not to get worked up over these things anymore, but it's so very hard. Very hard.
Here's one story: A teacher in Florida made a 12-year-old student, Giovanni Rubeo, stand up and make a call to his parents. His fault, mistake, error? He read from a book during the 90-minute free-reading time. The book? Of course, it was the Bible, one he had received from a local church. The teacher made the student call his parents in front of everyone as some sort of punishment. When the parents did not answer, the teacher took the phone from the student and left this message:"I noticed that he has a book -- a religious book -- in the classroom. He's not permitted to read those books in my classroom."
When Giovanni's dad, Paul Rubeo, protested his son's treatment, the school officials sent him a two-sentence reply that dodged the key issue of whether students could read religious material during free time.
Let's be fair here. The teacher, who according to some headline writing "humiliated" the student, also said on the recording, "So, please give me a call. I need to have some understanding on direction to him about the book he's reading as opposed to the curriculum fro public school. Mrs. S. Thomas. Thank you. Have a wonderful day. Bye-bye."
That's not exactly hate speech, for those conservatives who would brand the teacher. The parents, however, wanted a public apology. Lest a teacher be strung up, Broward County Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie publicly apologized. Runcie said, "Let me be clear. Broward County Public Schools respects and upholds the right to bring personal religious material to school, including the Bible."
There. Done.
Uh, no so fast.
A battle is about to begin that makes this little tussle over Bible reading seems like a, well, like a battle instead of a war. In Oklahoma City, a group wants to erect a monument of the Ten Commandments on the Statehouse lawn. At the same time, a group called the Satanic Temple (backed, of course, by the ACLU) is insisting that a nearly completed statute of Satan stand alongside the commandments. The group spokesman said that the bronze statute will represent the Baphomet or Sabbatic Goat. To make things even more disturbing (and I'll have to say you have to go a ways to do that for me), the statute has a smiling child on each knee. It goes without saying much or often that the good folks in Oklahoma are not taking this, uh, sitting down. The Satanic Temple is, of course, attempting to prove that Oklahoma -- particularly in the permit department -- has a double standard.
The plain fact, as plain as the dust storms that still scratch the eyes of Oklahomans, as plain as the standards the right grabs on to and holds so tight the commandment tablets begin to crack, as plain as the ACLU's constitution it so willingly claims as its own Bible, is that they do have a double standard.
Here we go ... they have one. We have one. The teacher in Florida did and does. The student and his parents the same. Like the ones who want Ten Commandments stuck in the ground like the line in the sand at the Alamo. Like the ones who want to put up statues of Satan and smiling children.
They, we, all of us have double standards. We want quite desperately to have things our way. We want to protect our constitution ... OUR constitution. Any other constitution need not apply.
The point is this, friends. If we're going to go by our constitution, the one the forefather's took great love and care writing, then we're going to do that. And it says that we have freedom OF religion, meaning we have the freedom to choose any or none religions. Even dumb as bricks statues of Satan and little kids. We do. That's the country we've chosen to live in.
Does it make it right? Nope. Does it mean I support it? Nope. Does it mean it drives me bat crazy? Yep.
But it also means the kid in Florida should have and must have the right to read that Bible. And it means the ACLU should be filing suit to protect his rights.
But, of course, that would mean the ALCU would have a double standard. Wouldn't it?
6 comments:
Billy, as much as I love your way of keeping it real, and making the Gospel real in this beat-up old world full of struggles and human short-comings, I just cannot agree with your oft-expressed views on the separation of church and state under our Constitution. Sure, most of the protests against public prayer are nothing but petty and spiteful. But sometimes the freedom OF my religion is the same as freedom FROM yours. That's especially true these days when there is so much diversity of religious (or unreligious) viewpoints. Perhaps we sometimes mistake our comfortable traditions -- or our misty romantical rememberances of them -- for the Real Thing, which cannot be stopped by any government. I could babble on and on and on (and on), and I often do. But I'll stop by saying only that I don't think we Christians should look to "Caesar" (in any form) to support us; he's a dangerous and demanding partner.
And here's something more about the ACLU's "double standard."
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
Kevin, I always love your comments, and I just read this one. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you for separation or against? I want to understand, because I think you're not sure about mine. I believe in the right to public prayer in all circumstances and I believe that is under attack. But I also believe the constitution says what it says and there is not much getting around it. Tell me what you think exactly.
Kevin, I always love your comments, and I just read this one. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you for separation or against? I want to understand, because I think you're not sure about mine. I believe in the right to public prayer in all circumstances and I believe that is under attack. But I also believe the constitution says what it says and there is not much getting around it. Tell me what you think exactly.
Okay, I looked at the link which I didn't see before I commented, and I get where you're coming from. You're defending, I believe, the right to free speech from government intervention. In that, I don't disagree. My point about the double-standard is, or was meant to be, is that we all see things our own way. Nothing more, nor less. Peace, brother, we want the same things I think.
I reread what you said, too. I don't think we are too are apart, at least as far as understanding what the situation is. I DO believe in separation; partly because the Government does not really help and may actually hurt the Church. Drawing the line is always the tricky part. I just tend not to be as upset as you are, even when the line is badly (intolerantly?) drawn to exclude displays of faith that are in no way coercive. Nobody will stop me from praying, alone or with others, as the Spirit moves.
Upset? Nah. Passionate? Pretty much always. And yes the answer is to always pray no matter what. You're a great reader, Kevin. Keep on keeping it real, as you say.
Post a Comment