Politics

---

Colin Bernreuter
Professor Canapa
English 104, Section 3
3 May 2012
One Nation Under God
Unity is what gives groups of people power. The phrase “knowledge is power” is obsolete without unity. If each person were intellectually gifted but alone, nothing can be achieved. The American Revolutionaries were united under the American flag during the War of Independence. So too were Americans united during WWII, fighting for democracy against fascism. Since its founding, America has been a country of contrasting ideas, beliefs, and people. We have a tendency to unite only when trouble arrives. During wars, recessions, and tragedies, we find it in ourselves to come together, but not during peace. Why not? We feel during times of peace that we don’t need each other. We become self-sufficient. We abandon traditional moral values of unity, charity, and compassion in exchange for prosperity, fame, and well-being, all the while forgetting that the latter come with acting on the former. We need something to keep our nation together at all times, something deep enough inside us that cannot be changed by changing times. Our country had “it” up until the end of WWII: the promotion and teaching of Christianity and its virtues. Our nation must again become a Christian nation.
Constitutional Legitimacy
It is obvious to say that the strongest and most popular argument against the establishment of official religion comes from the Constitution. The Establishment Clause reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (U.S. Const, amend. I). The meaning behind the language used has certainly changed since the adoption of the Constitution. When it was written, the term “establishment” literally meant “monopoly,” or that one religion would hold a monopoly in America. Strict separationists, or people who believe in separation of every aspect of both government and religion, misinterpret this phrase by using 18th century vocabulary but with 21st century meaning (Greenhouse 493) As a result, they claim that this phrase prohibits any sort of religious involvement anywhere in government or vice versa. The modern usage of “establishment” is described as any organization or dominant idea. What this phrase says is that “Congress shall not create an official religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This does not mean that the federal government cannot support religion. It does not mean that the federal government is prohibited from using a certain religion’s symbols and principles as part of their daily lives. What it does mean is that the federal government is prohibited from creating an official religion.
It is hard to imagine a government such as ours creating an official religion, but being intolerant of other religions. It is un-American. England, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Greece, Costa Rica, Norway, and many others have established religions in their constitutions. In the Norwegian Constitution, a state religion and the support of it is explicitly mandated. In Article 2, it reads: “(1) All inhabitants of the Realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion. (2) The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State. The inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in the same” (Nor Const, art. II). In addition, Article 4 states that “The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion, and uphold and protect the same (Nor Const, art. IV).” This not only means that the King must personally be Lutheran, but he must also profess it, defend it, and live it.
What makes America different than these countries? We emphasize the right of religious freedom. The idea of being hunted down and persecuted because a person’s beliefs are different than those of the state is a real nightmare for many people around the world. It is the government’s duty to protect its citizens. When there is no religion involved in government, government lacks sound moral principles. It also lacks responsibility to a higher entity or idea. On the other hand, when there is no government involved, religion becomes the government thereby creating a theocracy. The Freirian concept of teacher-student cooperation has implications in the political and religious spectrums of society as well. Freire states: “The teacher [government] is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches [governs], but one who is himself taught [governed] in dialogue [cooperation] with the students [religion], who in turn while being taught [governed] also teach [govern]. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow” (66). It is only when government and religion can effectively mix that true government takes form. It fulfills its duty to protect its citizens both from the outside and the inside. If there was one country that could show the world that religion and government can coexist peacefully while maintaining tolerance of other religions, it would be America. Our history is a testament to this idea.
Moral Legitimacy
The ethical principles taught in the Bible are not simply religious rules and guidelines, but instructions for all people on how to create peace. The 10 Commandments are a “divinely” written set of laws applying to Christians, but they are applicable to non-Christians as well. They are logical. These ethical principles mirror the Natural Law. Natural Law is the underlying code of conduct programmed into humans as to what is right, and what is wrong. It is this same Law that The Founding Fathers emphasized in the writing of both the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution. All people, including atheists, cannot escape judgment from Natural Law, because it is not a religious law, but a moral one. It has nothing to do with theology or other religious doctrines.
C.S. Lewis, author of “Mere Christianity”, offers an insightful example as to how why a Christian ethic is superior to others. He states: “Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality” (13). We know, however, that Christian morality is better than Nazi morality. History has shown it, but why? It is the Christian ethic that stresses grace as means to salvation as opposed to the Buddhist, Muslim, or other moral codes of conduct that preach good works. Good works can be corrupted into self-preserving ideals rather than for the benefit of others. Grace however, is immutable and is freely given to Christians by Christ through faith. Good works that result from grace are out of duty and obedience rather than out of self-preservation.
There are seven total “virtues.” There are four that can be applied to all walks of civilized life. These are called cardinal virtues. They are not religious in nature, but are evident in Christian morality. They are Prudence (practical common sense), Temperance (moderation), Justice (fairness), and Fortitude (courage) (Lewis 76). Prudence is closely associated with the concept of praxis illustrated by Freire. Praxis means practical action. It does no good for someone to have a great idea and simply lock it away in their mind (Freire 63). Christianity is not a dormant religion. It is active, it is fluid. As a society, we have lost that sense of putting our thoughts into actions, either because of timidity (the opposite of virtue #4), or simply laziness. It is not blind action, but practical action. There is no sense in acting out of blind ambition. Modern society is constantly begging for change, for action, without thinking it through (using Prudence). Prudence keeps the ideas of Christianity logical and applicable to all people, not just Christians (Lewis 77).
Cultural Consequences
Spirituality is a deeply personal matter, one that cannot be taken away by force. This being said, no matter what laws or social norms a country has instituted, a person’s religion is ultimately his or her decision. If the official religion is Buddhism, that does not discriminate against Christians, Muslims, or Atheists. Each person, especially in America, can pursue whatever spiritual or non-spiritual ends he or she wishes, as long as it does not discriminate.
Our country is often regarding as a “melting pot” of different cultures and ethnicities. The majority of these different groups are Christian, reaching 76% (Jelen 31). While there are large numbers of unaffiliated people, Muslims, and Jews, Christians are the majority. There has been, in recently years however, a decline in the majority. What has happened in recent years? There have been rifts created amongst Americans, Christians and Non-Christians alike. Topics like abortion, gay rights, and euthanasia are tearing our country apart. Everyone is to blame, both Christians and Non-Christians. We have become two warring factions trying to force each other’s ideas into action. An official religion would give the country an idea of where the government stands. For example, the idea of abortion would be judged by the Christian moral code and would become illegal nation-wide rather than only in some states. If some states legalize it, but some do not, there will continue to be unorganized bickering rather than organized debate. There needs to be a starting point for discussion and communication. If there is no common ground established, neither side can effectively debate. It becomes an attack on each other rather than on the real problems originally being discussed.
Our culture needs the type of communication and learning Leona Okakok describes in “Serving the Purpose of Education”. She says, “To me, educating a child means equipping him or her with the capability to succeed in the world he or she will live in” (78). In the Inuit tribe Okakok belonged, education also included the passing down of morals, traditions, and life lessons. The religious debate that is so prevalent in America needs to be shown to everyone, not just students. If we don’t change our morals and life lessons, then we will naturally pass them down to our children. The world they will live in will not allow them the capability to succeed. It may be more prosperous and enjoyable for a short while, but that will be its limit. Teaching Christianity would eventually bring prosperity and joy to society if doesn’t become corrupted by the means I mentioned above. Instead of being just prosperous and joyful for a single generation, society would also pass this onto the next generation, creating a ripple effect for generations to come.
Within Christianity there are a myriad of different denominations that have different ideas as to the interpretation and administering of the Sacraments. If Christianity would become the official religion, what kind of Christianity would it be? Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox? It seems like this would also becoming a dividing problem rather than a unifying solution, but that is not true. In every denomination, the core truths and teachings of the Bible remain the same. The Bible is, in its simplest form, a declaration of what all Christian churches, regardless of denomination, believe in. The ideas of a Creator (God), the salvation that comes with faith, and the means by which Christ gives us grace are all evident in each denomination.
The concept of separation of church and state, while denying the ability of the government from interacting with religion, promotes religious pluralism, or the existence of denominations. Since there can be no official religion, members of each denomination show signs of nationalism except in this case, pride in one’s church. Separation of church and state allows each denomination to mold itself into a unique microcosm of American society as a whole (Jelen 26). It gives them identity. This is a very good idea as long as the churches do not corrupt the biblical teachings they profess.
The only way for our country to adopt an official religion is if we amend the Constitution. While it has happened before, it is unlikely that this proposition would go through, simply because of the enormity of the consequences. One criticism is that it will start a “landslide effect”. One type of freedom (religion) is apparently denied, thereby allowing other freedoms such as press, speech, and assembly eventually to be denied. I find this hard to believe. The American people are a stubborn people. If they allow the establishment of an official religion, I have no doubt that the American people would not allow a landslide effect to take place. Religious freedom is flexible in that is internal. As I mentioned before, even if the official religion is not our own, we still have the ability to do as we please regarding spirituality. Other freedoms like speech, assembly, and press are external, or on public display. They are visible and more easily controlled by the government.
The institution of an official religion in America goes against one of the founding principles of our country: religious freedom. This being said, simply because it cannot have an official religion does not limit our government from promoting a single religion. Being favorable to Christianity does not make our country intolerant to other religions; it simply gives its citizens an idea of what moral principles the country stands for. Religious organizations must rely on their own resources to survive, which results in the corruption of traditional values into more socially-appealing ones. This promotes economic competition between organizations, which, after all, is the essence of capitalism in America.
We now have a choice. Shall we promote minor economic and social competition between religious organizations and sacrifice traditional values? Or shall we instead sacrifice this small portion of economic growth for the growth of morality, Christian morality that has the potential to change our secular society into a unified one. It is evident from our recent history that secular society is corrupt and needs moral re-evaluation. C.S. Lewis saw universal applicability of Christianity.
“Christianity has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying “Do as you would be done by” to a particular society at a particular moment.  It could not have.  It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme which suited one place or time would not suit another. That is not how Christianity works.  When it tells you to feed the hungry, it does not give you lessons in cookery.  When it tells you to read the Scriptures it does not give you lessons in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar.  It was never intended to replace or supercede the ordinary human arts and sciences:  it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs, and a source of energy which will give them all new life, if only they will put themselves at its disposal” (82).




Bernreuter- 1 -

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE AS A MEMBER OR VISITOR