An interesting editorial caught my eye in today's
Washington Post. It was entitled
Editing Jefferson (registration is required, so I'll summarize).
Charles W. Carrico, a former Virginia State Trooper who represents southwestern Virginia's Grayson County as a Republican in the State legislature, feels that Christians are being silenced and persecuted. As such, he wants to change the Virginia State Constitution by way of amendment. Continue below the fold and I'll explain.
The relevant passage Mr. Carrico wants to amend was adapted from Thomas Jefferson's
Statute of Religious Freedom. In part, Mr. Carrico wants the amendement to include:
"...[the] people's right to pray and recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including public schools."
As the Washington Post points out, these activities are legal provided no one is required to join in and that the Supreme Court affirmed this under the first amendment by allowing for the now-famous daily minute of silence. The Post feels that it opens the door too widely in its language and could give way to
"...conceivably include[ing] activities clearly beyond the constitutional pale, such as baptizing born-again students in classrooms or erecting shrines in the cafeteria."
Mr. Carrico asserts in his argument that
"America was founded on Christian beliefs."
Really? Gene Garman points out that Thomas Jefferson was, himself, a Unitarian. Unitarians do not believe in the trinity and place great stock in individual freedom of beliefs. John Adams likewise rejected the trinity. Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Ezra Stiles in 1790, flatly states that he has some doubts as to the divinity of Jesus while he admires Jesus' moral teachings. Franklin, along with Thomas Paine, ascribed to a belief in God but didn't commune with any church.
A few additional quotes back this up:
"All men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religioun according to the dictates of conscience"
- James Madison, Papers, 1776
"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has trumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest offices that are known in the United States."
-George Washington, Writings, 1793
I think that the framers of our Constitution and founders of our nation sought to preclude exactly what Mr. Carrico seeks to espouse by way of amendment.
Before the 2004 election, I was ambivalent on the issue of "religious creep" into taxpaying corners. I myself am a Christian, and I take great comfort in my beliefs and in my particular brand of faith. If someone also wants to seek comfort in Christianity (or judaism or hinduium or islamism etc.), I'm all for it. If a Catholic wants to raise their child to believe in the power of communion and the necessity of confession, have at it. A little prayer never hurt anything, right? But more and more I turn around and I see our Constitution and our laws eaten away in small bites and nibbles and religion, particularly Christian religion present in classrooms and courtrooms and within state buildings across the country. It's not completely overt - no one makes you recite the Lord's Prayer before you can enter a courthouse - but it is subtext and fabric more and more at every turn, and that's not fair to those who believe differently, nor to those who believe the same but prefer to keep it a personal observance. It's especially not fair to children who have the right to decide what they will believe and pass on to their children. To allow this slow, deliberate encroachment is no better than flagrant manipulation.
People are doing something about it, however. Thomas Van Orden, a homeless man (and former lawyer) in Austin Texas, has written his own brief and submitted it to the Supreme Court. Mr. Van Orden objects to a large, prominent statue of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol adjacent to the Texas State Supreme Court. The Court will hear this case (Van Orden v. Perry) in March of this year. Chalk one up to the little guy, looking out for our Constitution and its contuance in spirit.
That got me thinking: there's nothing wrong with being opposed to allowing religion, religious language, and religious observances to snake their way into the taxpaying elements of our lives. It doesn't make me an atheist - nothing can. It doesn't make me a raging leftie, either, who opposes all Christians - I don't. But it made me realize that, while I disagree with the NRA's tactic of "they're coming to get your guns" to boost membership, I understood it a lot better. For the NRA, giving even one inch means the government and anti-NRA groups will take the proverbial mile. I feel the same way about religious creep.
We can each monitor this creep in our communities and endeavor, like Mr. Van Orden, to ensure that our Constitution's intent is maintained, strengthened, and proliferated. It begins by being involved in your childrens' schools, if you have children, and extends to not standing for even the smallest things to work their way into the DMVs where you are required to register your cars and obtain your driver's licenses or into your courthouses and other publicly-owned facilities. In the spirit of Mr. Van Orden, it's as simple as writing a tasteful, respectful letter of complaint. When added to the other tasteful, respectful letters of complaint, it's "public opinion" and not a "bunch of atheists" that drive a strict adherence to Constitutional intent.