In My God We Trust

A Political Essay by Kevin I. Makice

July 8, 1999

I have disagreed with a lot of national politics in my lifetime, particularly in this decade, but nothing has scared me more than the actions of our current elected leadership.

Religion -- a very personal element to living -- has intruded on social policy to an alarming degree. Community is at work when social conscience, in expressing individual preferences, shuns certain actions and ways of living. It is horrifying, however, when those individual preferences work their way into the rule of law.

Three recent examples of this religion-as-policy movement are particularly chilling: the Ten Commandments rider; our Congressional obsession with flag burning; and government endorsement of religion-based social services.

Ten Commandments posted in schools

When Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) successfully attached a provision to a post-Columbine anti-violence bill that gives states permission to decide whether the Commandments can be displayed in public facilities, it was just the latest attempt to get Christian symbolism integrated with public schools. The idea actually resurfaced a couple years prior when Alabama Judge Roy S. Moore refused to remove his copy of the Ten Commandments from his courtroom.

According to Aderholt, the purpose of the rider was to "promote morality and work toward an end of children killing children." This is akin to saying kids would do better in physics if only we plastered the Theory of Relativity on school walls, or that Home Economics grades would improve if we would only post Betty Crocker recipes. The words are not meaningful unless there is discussion on the meaning, and that discussion cannot be presented as religious practice from a public school setting. Period.

There is no way to make the Ten Commandments a non-denominational message unless you scrap the first one entirely. V and VII are already in law books, so maybe we should just display the Legal Code instead. Most versions of the modern Bible say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" without specifying humans. What does that mean for the evil cattle industry or the local exterminator? If Jesus and Mary are indeed in heaven, then one might argue most churches are in violation of "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above."

The argument has been made that the Ten Commandments express universal elements but no finite meaning exists. Their power lies in interpretation, which varies with each religion and language. Like a theatre production, its effectiveness depends on the participants.

The Idolatry of the U.S. Flag

Flag Burners are treated like the second coming of Communism in America. Yet, like the Ten Commandments, it is the idea behind the matter not the thing itself requiring protection.

Ignoring the religious overtones, it is clear our nation's best interests are not being sought. At one successful birth in 200,000, there are more conjoined twins in this country than flag burners. Just 45 incidents were reported between 1777 and 1989, yet we have wasted much of this decade focusing on this populism. As of late June, 305 House Representatives were convinced it would be a good idea to attack this sub-minority of potential expression at the expense of the Constitution.

"Desecration" is the important and vague word that is the key to a stubborn amendment movement intent on treating the U.S. Flag as a religious symbol. The very root of the word is born from religion, literally meaning "subject to sacrilege." Viewed in the right context, the Flag Desecration Resolution violates the First Commandment.

God help us if we actually pass this amendment. Violations abound on a typical Fourth of July. The proud stars and stripes can be seen on sweaty tee-shirts, paper napkins, dog leashes and diapers. Under the flag desecration amendment, these unpatriotic types should be arrested. What of artwork depicting a flag? Do we let some clever malcontent paint a likeness of an American flag on a bedsheet and burn that? Or the five-year old who doesn't like his Crayola flag rendering and discards it into a camp fire? Not if we are being true to our new Bill of Rights.

Religion may not be a prominent player in this policy, but the same narrow-minded forces are evident.

Integration of religious practice into treatment

Thanks to the wonderful work of the Catholic and Jewish Charities, government funding of religion-based social service organizations is not a new concept. In a startling political revelation, however,the leading Presidential candidates for the two major parties gave support to overlooking requirements for subsidized agencies to remove religious practice from the admission procedures and the care they provide.

The House has been taking these very small steps across the Separation boundaries for several years. Following on the heels of the controversial Community Renewal Act, legislators are in the process of expanding subsidization of faith-based programs from welfare to drug rehab and other social services. Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), in praising passage of his amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill, claimed that faith-based programs are much more successful than conventional ones. What he did not acknowledge is that religious programs are populated only with those who choose to be there, not court-ordered appointees attending as part of their sentencing or evaluation. Picture the first time a court orders someone to attend a program that mandates acceptance of Jesus Christ in order to complete treatment. For some, that approach may provide lasting help. For many others, it will constitute an official endorsement of a religion to which they don't subscribe.

There is nothing right now that prevents a religious group from receiving government funds to promote their services. The catch -- as with education -- is that religious practice cannot be used as either a qualification for receiving the service or as part of the technique in providing the service. Any religion that the person in need gets must be voluntary and not coerced.

Flags and Religion-in-Schools are just the sleight of hand. The real horror is what can become of our laws and our way of life if these important boundaries that separate religion from state are callously crossed.

A recent resolution sponsored by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) urged national, state and local leaders to "call the people they serve to observe a day of solemn prayer, fasting and humiliation before God." 275 elected officials charged with upholding our Constitution voted to ignore the two-century-old principle separating Church and State. The bill failed only because special House rules required a two-thirds majority. As Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) said in voting down the Chenoweth measure, "Perhaps it is time for us in Congress to preach a little less and practice a little more."

With all that is happening these days, it is wonderful that people are responding to societal crises with vocal expressions of their beliefs. Only good can come from that ... as long as it remains in the form of communication not legislation.

Content originally provided by 3rdparty.org is not subject to copyleft freedoms in its original form. Any reproduction of 3rdparty.org content published in this wiki must be accompanied by the following link to the original version:

http://3rdparty.org/essays/990708.html