Doesn't a Public School Teacher in America Have the Right to Brand Students with His Religious Beliefs Anymore?
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-- President Thomas Jefferson
Here we go again. An evangelistic football coach is trying to put a crown of thorns on a fellow bible-thumping teacher who allegedly used his public school position to push his religious beliefs. You won't believe how far the teacher went to make a permanent impression on his students.
The coach already lost his job for pigskin proselytizing. The teacher, John Freshwater, went one better. According to charges brought by the Mount Vernon, Ohio, school board, Freshwater not only preached in class but used an electric tool to burn crosses into the arms of his young acolytes.
Coach Daubenmire, now a Christian radio rabble-rouser, is leading a, pardon the expression, spirited defense of his fellow fundie fanatic. He's quoted in the Columbus Dispatch as saying, "Our culture is Christian. ... We've become so afraid of religion in America that we won't even acknowledge what's happened. But it's history."
The insinuation that religion has been smothered in America would be laughable if it weren't taken as gospel by so many rightwing Christians today. One Dispatch reader responds to the story with this cogent analysis: "Geez, since when did non-believers get to out-law anything said or done by believers?? There is no such thing as religious freedom in this country. The atheists are pushing their religion down everyone's throats..."
In reality, there is more right-wing religion in public life than at any time since the 1950s. A highly politicized and oppressive version of Chrisitianity has taken over much of the Republican party, driving moderates and realists into the shadows or to the centrist wing of the Democratic party.
To restore health to American democracy, we need to restore a modicum of secularity to both major parties. The Christian right loves to fudge the difference between atheism and secularism. Atheism is a lack or, in some cases, a deliberate rejection of belief in God.
Secular simply means separate from religion. It implies that religion is a private matter, to be shared voluntarily among the likeminded, with respect for others' right to choose to follow different religious beliefs or to be left alone if they do not believe. It is an idea at the heart of American life.
In a 21st century pluralistic America, wouldn't it be a better idea for teachers on the public payroll to teach this foundational principle to our children rather than burning crosses on their skins and minds?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Thomas Rogers
aliquot
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
Clay, at times you've written (though perhaps you were only being diplomatic) of a sort of truce between Religion and rational thinking.
But, after writing something like this, one has to think that no truce is ever possible, right? It has to be one or the other? I think Sam Harris and others have defended a position like that--even moderate religiosity would potentially provide a cover for acts like this one.
Anyways, my heart goes out to all of the young people who have to endure that sort of lifestyle.
Thanks for the blog...I will pass this around.
Best,
-David Logan
Ed Pearlstein
Sometimes we hear that the United States is "founded on
biblical principles", as a slightly softened version of the "Christian
nation" idea. People making that claim don't give specifics on which
foundations of the U.S. and which parts of the Bible they mean.
Of the many foundations of our country, I was able to find two
which are supported in the Bible, and several which run contrary
to the Bible.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Although the Declaration isn't really a legal document of the U.S.(since there wasn't any US until1787), it is important historically and philosophically. It is a document intended to justify revolution
against an established royal government. The Bible, however, says
"the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1-7), and "For
kings, and for all that are in authority" (I Timothy 2:2), thus giving
rise to the idea of divine right of kings. I find no mention of
"consent of the governed" in the Bible, as the Declaration demands.
While the Declaration deplores taxation without representation, Jesus says, regarding taxation, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21)
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I don't find in the Bible any defense of freedom of speech. On the contrary: "he that doubteth is damned" (Romans 14:23); "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers...whose mouths must be stopped.." (Titus, 1:10-11); and "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: ......and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19). The last passage could be construed as being against democracy, since anyone who runs for office against an existing administration is sowing discord.
RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE. This is embraced in both the original
Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) and in the First Amendment.
Yet in the Bible we have: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"
(Exodus 20:3); "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18); "He that sacrifice unto any god save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20); "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23); "he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him" (Leviticus 24:16). [Such stoning was actually carried out, in 1 Kings 21:13] Anyone proselytizing for another religion is to be put to death, and if that person is a member of your family, you are to strike the first blow to kill him or her (Deuteronomy 13:5-10).
The practice of "shunning" someone who disagrees with you on religious matters is advised in 2 Thessalonians 3:14.
A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Our Constitution demands this (Article IV, Section 4). But I find nothing in the Bible to support it. On the contrary, Romans 13:1-7 tells people to obey authority because it is instituted by God. Also, 1 Peter 2:13 can be interpreted in the same way, as can Titus 3:1.
"CORRUPTION OF THE BLOOD" is forbidden by the Constitution (Article
III, Section 3, paragraph 2). In the Bible, though: "Prepare slaughter
for his children for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21).
[However, the Bible does contradict itself on this: "... neither shall
the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16)]. Also:
"visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deut. 5:9);
"His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25). Bastards
may not enter the temple, nor their descendants (Deut. 23:2). God
even killed a baby because of a sin by its father (2 Samuel 12:14).
Ahab escaped punishment for murder by making an elaborate apology, and
his descendants were punished instead (I Kings 21:29). The doctrine
of original sin is also against this part of the Constitution.
SLAVERY. This was an important social and economic foundation of our
country both before and after independence. It was an institution
condoned by the founders and recognized and defended by the original
Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9;
Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). Slavery is also condoned in both
the Old and New Testaments, and it is never condemned. On the contrary,
it is codified, and made an inherited condition:
Exodus 21:4ff gives rules for keeping slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46
says that heathen may be purchased as slaves, that their children
become slaves, and that they are inherited as property by the owner's
children forever. Other places that indicate that slavery is a
hereditary condition are: Genesis 9:25, Exodus 21:4, Corinthians
7:20. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 says that when you conquer a city, if it
surrenders then all people inside it become your slaves; but if it
doesn't surrender, then all males are to be killed and all women and
children "take unto thyself". Luke 12:47-8 shows that Jesus approves
of slavery, for he describes the conditions under which one should
give a severe beating to a slave. 1 Timothy 6:1-2 tells slaves to
honor their masters, as does Titus 2:9.
In the book of Philemon, Paul sends a runaway slave, Onesimus, back
to his former master. But this conflicts with the admonition in
Deuteronomy 23:15 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant
which has escaped..." So the Bible is on both sides of the 1857 Dred
Scott case!
The Constitution, of course, eventually got corrected on the matter of
slavery. But there is no way to correct the Bible.
TREATMENT OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE. Here is another place where one of
the foundations of our country is justified by the Bible. "Then ye
shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and
destroy....And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and
dwell therein.." (Numbers 33:52-53). This biblical injunction was
obeyed many times by Americans.
A NOTE ON THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI. This treaty with the Bey of Tripoli
was negotiated by the administration of President George Washington,
and finally signed and ratified during the administration of President
John Adams, in 1797. Article 11 of the English-language version says
"the United States is in no sense based on the Christian religion".
(There is a mystery about this, since Article 11 doesn't appear in the
Arabic version! It's a fair presumption, though, that the English
version is what was signed by President Adams and duly ratified by the
U. S. Senate. See Bevans: Treaties and Other International Agreements
of the United States of America, 1776-1989, volume 11 and David Humphreys:
Miscellaneous Works (1804).)