| |
Religious
controversy has been springing up in politics and law in at least
three high profile ways recently. First of all, the whole Bob
Jones University thing that got George W. Bush into trouble with
the Catholic Church was really a botched opportunity. George W.
could have pointed out that his connection to B.J. University
really made him a Reagan Republican. Grandpa Ronnie tried to get
the university's tax-exempt status reinstated, which had been
revoked because of their ban on interracial dating.
In other lost
opportunities, none of the candidates stepped up to defend the University's
First Amendment rights to say whatever stupid things they want.
Even worse, nobody bothered to point out that the Catholic Church
is not alone, since most all religions are cults of a sort. After
all, they're all willing to take your money and try to convince
you that they have the answers to all of life's questions. A lot
of them even advocate genital mutilation--maybe not as severe as
those Heaven's Gate boys, but mutilation nonetheless. But good ol'
BJU is essentially history, as everything of a political nature
that is more than eight minutes old seems to be forgotten by any
American without a specific grudge. Now they're facing even greater
religious problems: football.
The United
States Supreme Court is currently faced with the challenge of sorting
out a sticky mess that they can't win. If they decide public prayer
is okay at school football games where government-funded equipment
and facilities are used, they face the potential of stepping on
the part of the First Amendment that does not allow any one religion
to be given preference over another. If they decide prayer is not
okay, they may be infringing on the part of the First Amendment
that supports the free speech of people who feel that they need
to save everyone else by spouting off about their god and their
religion regardless of how inappropriate it is. Of course, to most
people who would bother invoking god's help at a football game,
the concept of appropriate is generally lost. Dear god, help us
kick ass tonight!! Woooooooooo!!
Jay Sekulow,
a legal correspondent for Pat Robertson's 700 Club, is representing
the pro-prayer faction in the football case. Perhaps the association
is nothing to worry about. However, anyone who has ever watched
the 700 Club knows that Robertson is quite fond of repeating the
claim that the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution.
Certainly, those exact words are not, but the basis for that legal
concept is. Hopefully Sekulow has a better grasp of the law than
Robertson; but I wouldn't be too sure. Sekulow seems just as upset
as Robertson when kids aren't made to hear about Jesus or Moses
in their classrooms, and when Christian groups aren't allowed to
use school facilities. Hey, you guys ever heard of a church? They
tend to be quite roomy, and allow meetings that government funds
don't have to pay for. They've got tax-exempt status--take advantage
of it.
Among the
brilliant defenses concocted for the prayers are the process of
voting that the students go through before having a prayer--although
I haven't found any clear information on just who votes, when, and
why. Besides, spirituality and religion aren't supposed to be a
matter of majority rule. It's your own personal business. And what
about the kids who vote against it? Do they get to get up and make
a commentary afterward, explaining their objection to the prayers?
The Constitution doesn't say that as long as most people agree,
it is okay to impose a particular religion on everyone.
Unfortunately,
if you want any kind of logic when it comes to matters of government,
law, and religion, the U.S. just isn't a good place to be. On to
controversy number three: the choice for House Chaplain. As with
the BJU thing, this came down to a problem of whether or not politicians
were bashing Catholics when they chose the Presbyterian Reverend
Charles Wright over Catholic Timothy O'Brien for the position of
House Chaplain. The football connection in this is that former Seahawk,
Representative Steve Largent, champion of school prayer, was one
of the head doofuses asking puzzling questions such as whether or
not O'Brien's collar would be off-putting to house members seeking
spiritual guidance.
The real question
that should have been asked is why does the U.S. even have a House
Chaplain, or any spiritual leaders on the public dole? If they aren't
supposed to be advocating one religion or another, isn't it wrong
to have someone serving a religious function in Congress? Furthermore,
since the controversy was over whether or not there should have
been a Catholic or a Presbyterian to replace a Lutheran, doesn't
anyone see a bias here? If it came down to whether or not they should
rotate in a Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Taoist, or member
of any of the other myriad religions practiced in the United States,
there might be some sense of balance. But even then, they'd still
be looking at turning over public money for religion in a way that
is entirely unnecessary, and which gives an essentially unconstitutional
religious bias to law-making bodies. As it is, the squabbling was
over whose particular version of Jesus was good enough for the House
of Representatives.
Surely the
House has more important things to tend to than deciding on a spiritual
leader (whose presence apparently hasn't done anything to make the
House any more righteous, or even less corrupt). And just like football
players, football fans, Bob Jones, and George Bush, Congress members
can pray on their own time--without involving public funds or people
who don't want to pray.
Copyright
© 2000 Jon Schildbach All Rights Reserved
Jonathan
Schildbach is a Seattle resident who spends entirely too much
of his time living
out his junior high fantasies of staying up late to rock out,
play video games, and watch
movies about vampires living in post-apocalyptic war zones.
comment?
discuss this article on our discussion
board
|
