RELIGION & GOVERNMENTAL MEETINGS

Recent Lakeland Ledger “Voice of the People” articles reflect the passion and intensity people possess with respect to prayer in public, governmental meetings. Apparently, many citizens have come to believe the issue is “Atheists vs. Believers”. I think this is a misconception and needs to be addressed. The rights of the two, opposing sides is not what is in question, but whether it is safe and valid for a Democracy or Republic to allow religion to enter the domain of public service. I think the answer is unequivocally, no. This article offers some insight into this very controversial issue along with my personal opinions concerning such.

I can’t help but feel disappointed when I read some of the derogatory comments directed toward EllenBeth Wachs, a representative of the Lakeland Chapter of Atheists of Florida. In my opinion, her efforts to remove religion from governmental functions are something members from all religions should be engaged in. As a matter of fact, many self proclaimed Christians I have interviewed believe it is an obvious, violation of the First Amendment, allowing prayer in a public governmental meeting, regardless, which religion is represented. So why do some of these Christian Extremists find it necessary to vilify EllenBeth? I do not believe their resentment is for her or the concept of Atheism. I think their fear is founded on the insecurity concerning the future of their own religion and should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the Atheist, it would somehow, threaten their ability to practice their religion in their home or church. Nothing could be further from the truth, as there is no evidence to support this.

Should the Atheist’s case reach the Supreme Court, the City of Lakeland will have the obligation of proving the public’s religion is in jeopardy as a result of discontinuing an “opening prayer”. I do not think the Court would come to this conclusion. As far as I know, since the birth of this nation, religions in this country were never in jeopardy of systematic removal, with the possible exception of some of the African American Churches during the Civil Rights era of the 1960’s. Painfully, we recall, some of those churches were bombed or set on fire by White Racists which killed several of our American Citizens attempting to practice their faith. That was a sorrowful and distressing chain of events in our nation’s history and one has to wonder, how many churches, composed exclusively of white Americans had to endure what this minority suffered? Today, I know of no Christian Church which is threatened with eminent destruction or loss of their freedom to practice what they believe in. I would like to note, practicing one’s faith does not include the divine right to compel another individual to embrace it. I find, all too often, many self proclaimed Christians ignore the rights of others.

Another issue which needs to be addressed is the mistaken presumption, all of the Founding Fathers subscribed to Christianity and were united in their effort to make known it was the foundation of our nation. I do not claim to be a professional historian, however, my research indicates this is inaccurate. The material to support this conclusion is too extensive to provide in this article, however, I encourage the reader to read the letters and publications of Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Henry, Hancock, Paine, Allen, Jefferson, Mchenry and the rest of the more than two hundred Founding Fathers. There are scores of documents indicating they were bitterly, divided about the role of religion in both, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United Sates.
It is true, some were the sons of preachers of various Christian Faiths and some were even, ministers, however, all of them debated the role of religion in the formation of our nation and continued to debate it long after it was established. Some were self declared Deists, those whose beliefs include God creating the universe but taking no active role in its process. Clearly, the Founding Fathers were not in unison about incorporating Christianity or any other religion as the foundation for our new nation. I think most of them acknowledged a “creator”, a nonreligious definition of “God” and therefore, had no issue with using the term in government documents and publications, as they did in several instances. For those who believe the Founding Fathers incorporated “God” into the controversial “Pledge of Allegiance”, this is erroneous because the “Pledge of Allegiance” was not introduced until 1892, long after the time of the Founding Fathers. It is interesting to note, the original Pledge did not contain “…under God…” It was added later. In the 1940’s, it was subjected to a Supreme Court Ruling, still debated to this day.

If one comes to the conclusion Christianity was a part of some of the Founding Fathers personal life but not intended to be part of Governmental, Meetings, then why did they openly, practice their religion during Governmental Sessions? This is a complicated question and no one has ever adequately, addressed it to my satisfaction. Historians have debated it for years. I think the reason was it was simply, a habit. Any patriotic American knows it is extremely, contentious to question the integrity of a Founding Father, however, this must be done to make a point and that is, the Founding Fathers were not perfect, despite their composition of what I believe are the most remarkable and prolific doctrines ever written by man. They were human and like all humans, were prone to error.
Evidence of this is clearly, apparent when one considers these individuals believed in slavery, many owning several slaves themselves and subscribed to the refusal to allow women the right to vote. Is this consistent with a group of people who truly, believed “all men are created equal”? In deed, it would take many years and several subsequent, Constitutional Amendments to rectify these contradictions of inequalities. With respect to Civil Rights, some would argue it took nearly two hundred years for much of the inequality to be eradicated. If these Founding Fathers were so idealistic and faultless, why did they not consider this at the time? I think their habits with respect to religion are no exception and if they had the opportunity to witness the cases brought before the Supreme Court today, they would agree, any religion in meetings where governmental business is performed should be prohibited under the terms of their own, First Amendment Declaration. To ensure that was possible, they endowed the Constitution with the capacity to be modified upon the engagement of new ideas and arguments. They may not have been perfect, however, they were genius for having enough foresight to give the Constitution the ability to enable the country’s citizens to initiate changes when required.

Although, I was not present when the Founding Fathers designed the foundation of what our Country is today, there is enough support from their historical publications and writings for me to conclude they intended to create a government that had the best opportunity to endure. These people were extremely, well educated for their time and it is evident to me they would have analyzed the reasons other governments through out world history had failed. Though there were varied reasons for this, a reoccurring one was the role religion played in government. Because the nature of religion facilitates the difficulty in openly, questioning its authority, its abuse was rampant. Infecting a government, never far from internal collapse had been the order of the day. In other words, I think the Founding Fathers believed Religion was inherently, dangerous and allowing it to take an active part in government was a recipe for its destruction.
At the same time, America was promoted to be the land of religious freedom. It was encouraged for those abroad, suffering from religious persecution to come to America where at the very least, they were free and free to practice their religion. The question then became, how does a new country protect itself from religious infiltration and at the same time protect the rights of its citizens to practice their religious faith? I think the answer lies in that first line of the Constitutional First Amendment. For years, I have pondered why the Founding Fathers did not expand upon such an important topic, being religion and government and why the First Amendment did not contain volumes of rules and regulation relevant to this. I think the answer is the Founding Fathers had two simple goals; protect the government from religion and protect religion from the government. In deed, the first line in the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….. ” It was very simple and very definitive. It did not require any further exposition. After years of thinking about it, I have come to, truly, appreciate the genius of those who crafted those simple words.

The practice of performing prayer services in a governmental meeting may appear to be harmless and in most cases, in itself, is probably, so. However, if permitted to occur, it becomes a precedent. More religious injection is sure to follow. It would not take long before our government found itself in the same predicament of those that failed prior to the time of the Founding Fathers. So, what should the criterion be for religion in a public place? I think there is nothing wrong with religion in public under two conditions; One, it never occurs in a governmental meeting and two it does not occur in a location where it is impossible for a citizen to avoid it, should they desire to do so. For example, an opening prayer in a governmental meeting which requires citizens to attend should be prohibited. Another example would be a common pathway citizens have to travel where it is impossible to avoid. This might be the entrance to a homeowner’s subdivision or a bridge an individual uses to return home. If there is no other, optional route for a citizen to return home, then compelling that individual to confront a religious operation is wrong.
The most controversial location involving religion is the School. I think those who wish to participate in religion while being educated should do so in a Private School. A Public School should not engage in the practice of promoting any religion which includes the practice of school prayer. As a matter of fact, prayer meetings should not be permitted in a Public School unless it is guaranteed, its occupants are not exposed to religion during school hours. Likewise, the use of school equipment for religious purposes during school hours is wrong. Why do I feel this would be a violation of the First Amendment? The answer is, public education is required by State Law’s in most states. This implies a governmental required meeting where students, teachers and employees must attend. As a result, religion of any form in a Public School violates the First Amendment. I am aware, some States have interpreted this differently and do allow this activity to occur, however, I believe if such a case came before the Supreme Court again, it would be and should be over turned.

I am not an Atheist nor am I a member of any traditional Religion. When I attend a public, governmental meeting and prayer is part of the official forum, it disturbs me for two reasons. First, my Tax Dollars are being used to support a non governmental activity and second, it compels me to accept another individual’s interpretation of deity. Despite the debate over the First Amendment and other Constitutional issues, I think our Founding Forefathers intended “Freedom of Religion” and “Freedom from Religion” to be coexisting, essential principles for our new nation. Religious activities in a public, governmental forum are thus, a violation of my right to “Freedom From Religion”, despite what the majority may subscribe to.

Before I conclude this article, I would like to offer an explanation as to why I am a member of no traditional religion. Because I am an engineer, I am duty bound to look for the truth by embracing evidence. To do otherwise would promote false conclusions about an event or encounter. As I see it, Religion comes down to a matter of faith and to my knowledge, no one has ever been able to authenticate or validate its incorporation into the human race by a supernatural entity. Thus, when an individual utilizes unsupported assumptions and lack of evidence, commonly, characteristic of religious beliefs and they do so to affect society, it becomes a dangerous precedent and promotes ignorance. As a student of history, I have learned well, there is nothing more terrible than ignorance in action. Therefore, I have come to believe religion is dangerous.
Human history reveals there was a period of time where cultural, scientific and philosophical destruction occurred on a massive scale, much at the hands of the “Church”. This is commonly referred to as the “Dark Ages” and took place approximately, 450AD. to 1100AD. Many of these social geniuses were hunted down and exterminated by those who ordained their religion required them to do so. Early Christianity was part of this movement. The result was the loss of some of the most incredible minds ever to appear in human history and as argued today, the benefits humans might have endured had they lived to their fullest potential. Why did this happen? In my opinion, it was because of those who abused their authority inside the church and the reason it was so difficult to stop the madness was people were afraid of the supernatural consequences propagated by religious leaders who knew better.
Eventually, the suffering was so widespread, humans revolted which led to the Renaissance Age, where conditions began to improve. Unfortunately, the damage was done and humanity lost over six hundred years of potential benefits to the “Dark Ages”. If one finds it difficult to comprehend the consequences of the Dark Ages, one needs only to consider the many advances in science, medicine& technology which have taken place in just, the last eighty years. Now ponder what we might have accomplished had we been able to benefit from any fraction of those lost six hundred years. When I see a child suffering from a disease, an adult suffering from cancer or a race of people subjected to potential annihilation, I fully appreciate the dangers of organized religion. For me, I want no part of it. However, this does not eliminate my capacity for spirituality or the belief in the existence of a supernatural entity. Paradoxically, no religion is my religion, just the same as it is for the Atheist. The difference is, I do not require it to be formally acknowledged in a public, governmental meeting.

As a patriotic American, I would risk my life to defend any individual’s right to their religious beliefs. At the same time, I would risk my life to protect any individual’s right to be free of another’s religion. The solution is simple. Believers should practice their religion in their home or church, not where governmental meetings are held. In return, Alternate Believers and Non Believers should respect that individual’s right to their beliefs and pledge their duty to protect it. If we all participate in this philosophy, we will substantially, reduce the possibility of Religion perpetrating harm upon another individual or group. Then and only then, would the earth would become a safer place to live.