www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pledge of Allegiance

I have great problems with religion in the public sector because I have seen the harm it can do. When I was in 5th grade I had a lovely woman for a teacher, a devout Baptist...I think her husband may even have been a lay preacher. Every morning she would read us a Bible story. That might not have been so bad, but she would also tell us things like how those wicked Catholics used to keep Bibles chained up so people couldn't read them, etc. I wasn't a Catholic at that time, but even then I felt an attraction to the Catholic faith. I felt sad because she was talking about the Church I wanted to be a part of. When something as personal as religion is brought into the public sector that stuff happens and as our society becomes more pluralistic the danger is greater.
Teach your children at home right from wrong, live your life according to the teachings of Christ and that will be better our society than George Bush saying "God bless you" or saying "under God" in the pledge or anything else. Face it folks, this is no longer a Christian society, if it ever was. We have to get over that idea and sanctify the world by our lives...that is the only way we will change anything. Don

The one thing that many in the "nationalist-religious" debate often forget is the Tradition from which the ideals of modern North American society came. Were founders such as Jefferson hostile to traditional religions? The answer would have to be yes. But what the likes of Jefferson and Thoreau claim as enlightened ideals came from the traditions which they so flippantly rejected.

Before we can discuss "walls" and "bright lines" we have to at least seek the origins of the principles they (the founders of our principles) espoused. Was the idea that all men were created equal an invention ex nihilo from Jefferson and his ilk? If not, where did it come from? When questions like these are answered, then we will be in a better position when determining whether words like "under God" are good or not.

If it is found that these ideas come from a tradition(s) and are inseparable from axioms within that (those) tradition(s), then we should be careful when seeing others blindly maligning that (those) tradition(s) in support of "liberal", "modern", or "conservative" ideals.

Quite true. They were wrong. Christians are obliged to proclaim the Gospel at all times. There will always be challenges and we will not always take the correct path.

No. Just an ordinary student in modern America.

A fair point. I disagree with your use of the term �we� since the viewpoints you express stray rather far from the moral teachings of Orthodoxy.

You obviously don�t get out much or have chosen to not to see what affects our public schools in many areas of the country.

I am always very cautious in making any statement. The original foundation of our moral system was imperfect, but it was more solid than any other society, being built on Common Law which was in turn built on the Ten Commandments.

None of which, of course, has any real roots in the moral foundation our American society was built upon. All of it is rooted in moral relativism.

Public society is public life. Students should be able to talk openly about their religious faith in the public arena of ideas without discrimination. Government officials should not be forced to leave their Christianity, Judaism or other faith at the door when they serve the community. Religious viewpoints should not be barred from the public square.

Regarding President Bush, he was pillared by the Left for allowing a minister, Franklin Graham, to pray at his inauguration and, even worse, to mention the word �Jesus�. PAW and the ACLU were all over the news complaining that such mention of God in public life was tantamount to the establishment of religion and that was forbidden by the First Amendment. In Alabama just this past week the governor is being attacked for holding a lunch hour Bible Study. It is totally voluntary and no one is compelled to participate. Guest speakers have included Protestant ministers, Catholic priests and a Jewish rabbi is on the schedule to give a talk. Some of those opposing the right of these people to gather are calling it �Christian terrorism�. Elsewhere there are lawsuits demanding that the Ten Commandments be removed from display on all public grounds.

As a balance to the material on the PAW and ACLU website I recommend reading some of the material on the ACLJ website at www.aclj.org. [aclj.org.] Their perspective is decidedly Protestant Christian but is far closer to ours as Catholic and Orthodox than is that of those other groups.

Some of our public schools.

Here in Virginia our children are taught that abortion is a personal matter (until a parental notification law went into effect recently local ordinances provided girls with a taxpayer financed abortion and their parents had not right to know). Curriculum also teaches that the choice to engage in sexual activity (heterosexual or homosexual) activity is morally neutral. In the news recently was a mock homosexual wedding ceremony conducted in a California public school which claimed to teach tolerance. In the news just this past week teachers in Maine were called on the carpet for teaching children whose parents are in the armed forces that their parents were unethical if they participated in the war (no matter what one�s opinion of the conflict it is wrong for them to inflict such a viewpoint).

While parents are the ones to teach values to their children the example is severely lessened when such values are not welcome in public life.

The government must walk a fine line. It must enact laws prohibiting certain activities (like murder, stealing, etc.) and enforce them. In this way it does speak about moral issues. We must restore a balance in which people of faith are allowed to contribute their viewpoints � as viewpoints based on religious morality - to solving the issues that face our society.

I highly recommend reading any of Bill Bennett�s books. His opinions offer much food for thought is strongly rooted in the Christian tradition.

Your teacher�s comments were rooted in ignorance. Also, no one is suggesting that a particular version of any religion be taught. Just that people have the right to express religious faith openly in the public life.

As Christians it is not ok just to live a quiet life and never open our mouths. We are called to witness Jesus Christ to the world through the way we live our lives and even with our mouths. We must work to ensure that we, and people of other faiths, have that right in society. That�s what religious freedom is all about.

Dear Administrator:

Your comments in response to Don together with your recounting of the curriculum in Virginia schools make, IMO, a compelling case that public school teachers should not be teaching values - neither their own idiosyncratic ones, nor ones approved by some state agency. What is it the competence of these people? Arguably none. And I don't expect them to do any better even if a less disquieting curriculum were put mandated. What would actually happen in the classroom?

Your ACLJ link is interesting. It links to the Newsday account of the Governor's Bible Study that you mention. It is was not PfAW or the ACLU that made the "Christian terrorism" remark; rather it was some group I hadn't heard of before "American Atheists". Their Alabama spokeman played Newsday like a violin with his clever quip. But the problem here seems to be more of a the lack of discrimination in the media, than a serious threat by this group. Other groups have weighed in with reasonable views. In particular, the spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State opined that "there is nothing illegal about the Bible classes". While this latter group is active against what it perceives as govenment sponsorship of religious activites or coercive actions, I hope that we can agree that they are not among those who expect that "Government officials should ... be forced to leave their Christianity, Judaism or other faith at the door when they serve the community" I am happy to see some discernment within that group, and hope that it is appreciated.

(PS the just war commentary ALJC makes interesting reading; they sweep some criteria under the rug, and come to hawkish conclusions considerably at variance with the Catholic Bishops)


djs

I think Catholics like yourself claiming the authority to determine who is a member of the Orthodox Church is the worst possible face of Catholicism. It is incompatable with sincere ecumenism.

Actually, I have professional responsibilities in that field.

I think the fact that Common Law is also refered to as English Law might be a hint that we are not the only society based on it.

Whatever.

But the problem is that teachers do teach values every day in everything they do. I offered a few examples from recent news in Virginia and California schools. There are hundreds more that anyone can research for themselves. We can easily extend this discussion to include examples of public life but I�ll limit my comments to our schools.

Values are taught by habit, by precept and by example. Aristotle said that learning the habit of good living at an early age makes more than a little difference. If you teach children proper attitudes towards responsibility, work and perseverance you need to teach them as early as possible. Our children hopefully get instruction in all of these at home by their parents. Our children, however, spend a huge amount of time at school where they model values that are often contrary to the ones they get from home. This leads to the children growing up to believe that the values from their family and faith belong in their private life while their public life must be lived in accordance with the values they learned in school. There needs to be some publicly agreed upon value system that is the standard of right and wrong and is exampled in our public schools.

The question is not one of whether teachers teaching values. They do teach values. Not just in the curriculum but in they way they teach, the standards they use to conduct daily activities and the example they set. They cannot help but teach values. The proper question is what values they should be teaching.

Regarding PAW and the ACLU I strongly disagree. I have studied their teachings and they are dedicated to creating a society in which people, especially government officials, are forced to leave their religious faith at the door. If you were a government official in San Francisco and announced that because of your Christian faith you must vote against providing health benefits to the partners of homosexuals you would be either quickly stifled or removed from office. Do you remember the presidential convention in 1992 where Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey was prohibited from speaking because he was a pro-life Catholic? If he had been pro-abortion he would have had great freedom to speak. These are only a few of thousands of examples.

PS: Read Bill Bennett�s book �Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism�. I highly respect the ACLJ�s work but Bill Bennett�s presentation of the just war theory is amazingly faithful to Catholic teaching.

Axios,

I respect your disagreement but many of the opinions you routinely express here are far from the teachings of Orthodoxy. I have made no determination of who is Orthodox and who is not. I am familiar with the teachings of Orthodoxy and it is clear that much of what you believe is far from Orthodox teaching. Sincere ecumenism does not mean respecting teachings that are wrong and not rooted in Holy Tradition.

Regarding the website you list as your home page, the content given there is at great odds with the articles on homosexual activity provided at the official OCA website and in the books published by the Orthodox Church. The teachings provided at the OCA website and in the books I�ve studied by Orthodox authors are virtually identical to those taught by the Catholic Church. Oddly, the website you reference as your home page links to a parish that is part of an independent Greek Orthodox Church. On cannot but help wonder just how independent the morality taught by this church is from real Orthodoxy?

Admin

I agree that in conduct, comportment, etc. they will, inevitably, teach values by their example. I think, however, that in the curriculum they should stick to facts and basic skills as much as possible. They are not trained or qualified to teach values in the curriculum.

I did not speak of of PfAW or the ACLU but of the groups actually in the Newsday article at the link you provided. I have no idea what PfAW and ACLU are saying about the Governor's Bible meetings. But the quoted Separation group does not see it as legally suspect. And you should recognize that fact. This group has a perspective on this question that goes beyond black and white.

According to whom? The simple fact is that Casey did not endorse the candidate who was being selected at that convention. Thus he was off the program. No party would ever put someone on the program without a prior endorsement of the candidate. No campaign would give air time without being assured that the speaker was on board with the candidate. The idea of equating this episode - im which a campaign is working to stay "on message" and to avoid giving air time to someone who may take the occasion to torpedo the candidate - with an infringment of religious liberty or with anti-Catholic bias is a mistatement of the event.

Dear Administrator,

I apprciate your follow up which I read as more kind towards me and towards ecumenism than you previous post.

However, let me explain to you the fundemental difficulty we Orthodox have with you Catholics -- even in your most sympathetic form, an element of Catholics seem to be incapable of restraining themselves in the internal affairs of Orthodoxy. Regardless of if it is the most ultramontane Pope or a Byzantine Catholic sympathetic to Orthodoxy and who has studied Orthodoxy, you seem to give lip service to Orthodox autonomy unless YOU are convinced (by your study or whatever) that you are right.

Orthodox Christian are not comforted to hear that Catholics will insist on their right to internally correct Orthodox Christian onky when they are good, Eastern, non-Latinizing "Orthodox-in-communion-with -Rome" types.

An example -- when two neighbors have been estranged for a long time, and when one of the issues of the estrangement is that the neighbor to the east feels the neighbor to the west interfers in his business, the neighbor to the west would be well advised to not go about disciplining his neighbor's children, no matter how self-assured he is that he is right.

Axios

P.S. I remember 1988 when many conservative Roman Catholics make much noise as to how the Orthodox Chruch should censure or excommunicate Mike Dukakis. It was not one of your better momements and I know very traditonal GOA members who still carry resentment over this.

"Axios,"

No one has said you are not Orthodox. What we have said is that the content of the website you list as your home page is not Orthodox. As the Administrator has stated:

There is no dispute about this, is there?

I mean, I think if we were to seek an official comment from the OCA or from Bishop Tikhon would we not get the same response: that the content of the site you've listed as your home page is at great odds with the teachings of the Orthodox Church?

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

According to the late Governor Casey. He was quite vocal that he was put off the program because he was a pro-life Catholic. You are correct that campaigns do not usually give air time to people with dissenting views on important subjects. They often, however, do schedule them to speak outside of prime time when the television audience is the lowest. It was amazing that Gov. Casey was not allowed to speak yet at the same convention Jessie Jackson drew great applause when he stated that �Mary was a pregnant single mother with no options� in reference to her not having the choice of abortion. But I guess you are correct, this is the message that party wanted to get across at that time. But, I am commenting off topic and I apologize.

Axios, with all due respect, your thinking is muddled. One doesn�t have to be a Jew to understand that Jews aren�t supposed to eat bacon cheeseburgers. Likewise, one does not have to be an Orthodox in communion with world Orthodoxy to see that much of what you post is not reflective of the teachings of Orthodoxy and that the website you reference has severely distorted the teachings of Orthodoxy. I have studied Orthodox theology for many years. Indeed, my own Byzantine Catholic Church was formed by Orthodoxy and we share an identical theology, save for the issue of the role of Peter. My comments are in line with all of the Orthodox sources I have studies (and you seem very intent not to comment on the actual teaching of Orthodoxy regarding homosexual activity). As Christians we have a responsibility to call all people to live the Christian life. This responsibility does not stop at jurisdictional borders. If my child was out doing something that he was not supposed to do I would certainly hope that my neighbor would stop him and sent him home for proper instruction. It is my responsibility to do the same for his children, especially when they are making such comments in a household I am responsible for.

PS: I do remember the 1988 campaign. You are correct the Roman Catholics complained about Dukakis�s pro-abortion views and asked how he could be a Greek Orthodox in good standing. I also know many Orthodox � including members of the GOA � who asked the same question and were embarrassed that the GOA championed the Greek ethnicity of Dukakis above the Orthodox moral teaching on abortion.

Well said, counsellor. :-)

The anti-establishment clause, which is in the Constitution, is not the same thing as the separation of church and state concept, which really developed much more through case law and commentary.

I'm often sadly amused by how we take this concept of separation too far. I have a couple tiny icons on my desk at work - I wish I had a dime for every person who has rather innocently asked me over the years if it was okay to have those in a Federal office space. Uh, yeah, I have that right - I'm at work 9 or more hours a day and I don't leave who I am at the door. Next thing I usually notice is that the person who asks this usually ends up with some sort of small, personal religious object of his or her own in their office space. No one has ever said anything negative to me.

I feel that removal of God from public life is a dangerous thing - particularly in a country that's Declaration says "[we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

How did this topic vear from the issue of the PLedge to the issue of whether someone is gay or not??

Surely that is between the person, God and his Spiritual Father and not for people on this forum who often do not know the person in the flesh and should not judge anyway?

Surely there are better things to discuss as Lent approaches (and already had begun for many Byzantine Catholics)

Peace,
Brian

The thread has developed from one focusing solely on the words �under God� in the Pledge into a more general discussion of people of faith being able to bring their opinions formed by their faith in the public arena for discussion.

I agree that whether one is homosexual or not is certainly something between the individual and his or her spiritual father. No one in this thread has judged a specific person. When, however, someone brings this issue forward for public discussion and argues that such activity should be accepted in public life (as Axios has done and repeatedly does on this Forum), Christians are bound to object and call those advocating tolerance of such unchristian sexual activity to reform their opinions to follow Christ and His teachings on that particular subject.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

Spdundas,

Pope St. Pius X condemned the "separation of church and state" in his encyclical, Vehementer Nos." As you know, all Roman pontiffs have condemned the notion of "separation of church and state." This is one of the main reasons why the feast day of "Christ the King" was developed in the Roman Catholic Church. It was only after Vatican II that any notion of "separation of church and state" would be recognized by Roman Catholics.

A sinner,

Adam