October 8, 2002

• 

  
  

  Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You

  
  

  True Story -

  
  

  John was a doctoral candidate at an American university who's name shall be kept confidential.  A mathmetician, John's dissertation is on algorithms of long-range planning and prediction.  On the evening he was to defend his dissertation, the very first question asked, "John, I understand that you are a Christian.  How (in light of your religious beliefs in a Supernatural Being who can and does from time to time intervene in human affairs) can you personally place any confidence in the equations you have here presented?"

  
  

  I've had a few years to think about this since Dr. John first described his experience.  My first reaction was "how unfair! if it's against the rules for a Christian to discuss his or her beliefs in a classroom, how is it fair to ask a Christian to defend his or her beliefs in a matter unrelated to theology - this was math we are talking about?  How did the man's religious beliefs have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not his equations worked."

  
  

  Do you see the assumption that I have bought into? (which the professor was wise to reject.)  I had come to the place where I believed the fiction that it's possible to separate the realms of secular and sacred.  I reached this point through years of indoctrination.  I was born in 1963.  My mom was in labor on the day that the Supreme Court handed down it's decision banning school prayer.  I never attended a school where prayer was allowed or encouraged.  I never attended a school where discussion of religous belief was considered appropriate.  God help anyone who carried a Bible, or prayed quietly over lunch. 

  
  

  I was present when a boy in my class bowed his head over that bizzare mystery meat pizza that smelled like rancid gym socks with a bit of barbeque.   If any food in the world could stand a little grace, the pizza at Smith Elementary certainly fit the bill.  (Can I get an Amen!?)  The teacher on duty leaned over and told Steve that it wasn't appropriate for him to pray at school in front of the others, but that if he wanted a few moments alone, she could arrange for him to leave the classroom a couple minutes early so he could pray before the rest of us arrived.  And that's what they did.  Steve left the classroom while the rest of us lined up and did whatever we did in preparation for the whole class marching down the hall.

  
  

  In my high school classes on history, the faith of our fathers was mentioned but it was blanketed with commentary on the irony that the pilgrims who came here to establish religious freedom themselves enacted laws against dissent.  We discussed the many unreasonable laws they passed to cover situations which we in our enlightened state could clearly see were not the purview of the civil authority.  (Which BTW, is an inaccurate statement of the reasons the Pilgrims immigrated to American to start with, as well as an inaccurate portrayal of their behavior after they arrived.)  But at the time I didn't know that my history book was inaccurate, and I didn't recognize the use of the logical fallacy of the strawman.  That's my point.  I wasn't taught how to look at source documents, I wasn't taught to analyze the relationship between belief and behavior, I wasn't taught to apply the rules of historical analysis and logic to the information at hand.  I was preached to in the fashion made popular by propagandists 'r us the world over.  My grades were dependent upon my ability to regurgitate the facts and examples that were outlined in my book, and I made very good grades.

  
  

  The rules of Secularism adopted by the Supreme Court and considered by the people who wrote and published textbooks failed in their intent to provide a neutral ground for teaching.  Whereas the school before 1963 both tacitly and overtly endorsed Protestant Christianity, the school after 1963 both tacitly and overtly endorses Secularism in a way that conflates the secular view to a religous system.  In history, in biology, in social studies, in every area, Secularism offers an alternative view to that of religious authorities on the questions of ultimate reality, the possibility of knowing, the nature of man, the purpose of history, the nature of Nature . . .  and while we were welcome to think the religious thing on the weekend, the message of Secularism is that the religious view offers nothing to public discourse.  Moreover, it is held to be an offense to the enlightened for a religious person bring religious talk to the table.  The doctrine of Secularism directly opposes religous freedom by establishing Secularism as the official values system of American Public life.

  
  

  I have asked how can we affirm the religious freedom of the individual without delimiting the freedom of his neighbor.  I believe John's experience in his doctoral review is an excellent example of how religious freedom looks.  Asking people to behave in a way that is contrary to their most deeply held beliefs is nonsense.  The University Professor understood that John's religious views played a central role in his personal decision-making and those views would emerge in the interpretation of John's data whether John was aware of this or not.  So when he raised the spectre of religion, he had both a right and an obligation to ask John to defend his thesis on those grounds.  Religion has been an invisible dragon in the room of American education for 40 years.  It's time that we acknowledge it's presence and deal with religion in a respectful and appropriate manner.

  
  

  Telling Theists that they can't pray when they have a desire to do so, telling an elementary child that he can't read from a religious text during a time set aside for free reading, telling a worker that she can't wear a religous symbol on her lapel - all because of the sensitivity of the others present doesn't work.  Don't ask, don't tell doesn't work.  The kind of tolerance that demands of some that they stand silent so that others will not be inconvenienced doesn't work.  The educated person knows that it is detrimental to ignore the factors that you don't like, feel comfortable with, or want to be true. 

  
  

  Do you remember John Nash's realization in the film (or book) A Beautiful Mind?  His friends, all attrcted to the sae blonde, quote Adam Smith's economic theory that the bet outcome occurs when everyman does what is bet for himself.  The core of Nash's equilibrium is that each person must do what is best for himself AND the group.  As long as we see ourselves in a system in which one side will either win or lose, we are doomed to all lose.  In Nash's realization - no one gets the blonde or any of her friends under the competitive model.  In terms of worldview, this means that no one is ever going to convert all his friends and neighbors to his point of view (the blonde).  And, in the marketplace of ideas, everypoint of view that is excluded moves us further and further from living in peace (the friends of the blonde.) 

  
  

  In practical application you may be shopping with a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Wiccan, or an Atheist all at the same time in the same store, but none of these people's views will spoil your milk.  When you attend a community event such as a high school graduation, members of that community may choose to freely exercise their religion by offering prayers of thanksgiving that little Johnny is getting close to gainful employment and an apartment of his own.  When you hire a person, you have no right to tell that person that she can't wear a pin in the shape of a religous symbol.  When a scientist looks at evidence that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, it is not helpful to claim that the scientist owes it to a religious view to adjust his numbers to accommodate a literal Genesis interpretation.

  
  

  The court standard that every piece of legislation must have a secular purpose is flawed.  Secular purpose doesn't equate with a neutrality, it favors a specific worldview over all others.  I am not asking or suggesting that we should go back to a time in which the teacher led prayer every morning.  As long as there are tests and beautiful blondes, kids will pray in school.  Prayer has been the focus of the argument in this country, but to center the discussion around prayer misses the point.  In the 1963 decision, the Justices talk a lot about original intent, they quote extensively from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and argue that he would never have endorsed religion in the classroom.

  
  

  The amazing thing is that they were able to find passages in which Jefferson said anything about education that didn't specifically demand the inclusion of religion in the classroom.  Jefferson wrote a lot about education.  He was an educational theorist in the line of John Locke and stated often that the primary goal of education was to produce a "moral man."  He wrote letters of advice to young people and their parents about what they should read, in what order, and where they should go to school.  Always he included religious and moral instruction.  Jefferson wrote the Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship.  He said that church members are never merely Christians but are also members of society and as such they are entitled to all the rights enjoyed by their fellow citizens without respect to religious affiliation.  If a particular religious institution is removed from a position of direct government influence, free expression is promoted.  But, if members of that same organization are prohibited from influencing government in ways open to all other citizens, their freedom is proscribed.

  
  

  One thing on which contemprary religious, and secular authorities agree is the break-down of moral understanding among today's citizens.  For example in one poll, 99% of respondents said it is wrong to steal.  When asked why it's wrong, over 70% of them said "Because you might get caught."  In a nation that presumes a moral awareness in its citizens, this number is frightening.  As frightening to me as the poll a few weeks back in which almost 50% of respondents said that the First Amendment goes too far in guaranteeing rights.  I don't want anyone who can't articulate why theft is wrong to be in charge of the IRS!

  
  

  The only way to reverse this trend is to develop values-focused education.  I'm not saying that we should teach Christianity.  When any one group is favored in the process, everybody loses - no one gets the blonde.  The only way to succeed in the endeavor is if we all understand from the beginning that the blonde is not the goal.  Education is not about gaining converts for a particular view, but for education to be complete, it must include a values component.  I can construct a damn fine argument that concludes "murder is wrong" based on the logic of Theism.  Such an argument is also derived from principles of Monism, Buddhism, Toaism and New Age philosophy.  The argument is a little more difficult to make from a strictly secular viewpoint, in that case it comes down to law and order and there are serious problems with the attempt to assign value to order over individual action in secular ethics.  But, at this point we are all so afraid that one religous group or another is going to get a toehold, that we aren't teaching values, morals, or ethics at all.  We must begin to address the need for ethics in society.  We must include the religious views in the process.

  
  

  It's time to stop acting like we're going to get cooties if we have to sit next to someone from a different religious tradition.

  • 10:45 am
  • 37 Comments