Too right. Many times schools don't understand what their limits are (partly because the courts of the land give conflicting messages) and they err on the side of being overly cautious. I've seen many Christians blame atheists and our culture for these kinds of situations where school administrators are simply trying to do what they think is required of law, and making a mistake. I've also seen Christians who, in cases like this, will automatically assume the ACLU is somehow behind it and actively trying to keep the student from their activity, like singing "Awesome god." It's a shame that people have it so wrong sometimes.
I agree with GCT.
Hmmm ... that doesn't happen very often.
The real shame here is that it isn't clear what the boundaries of the law are, and that any transgression of those boundaries will involve lawyers, and that legal battles can be very expensive and not commensurate with actual damages. Maybe if we were less litigious to begin with there would be less need for litigation of this sort (or maybe that's wishful thinking...)
Mr. Scott,
"I agree with GCT.
Hmmm ... that doesn't happen very often."
I'm as shocked as you are. Don't let it happen too many more times, or I'll lose my street cred with the secret atheist's cabal. 
Most school adminstrators are just cautious. Court cases can cost a district a bunch of money. What if your decision ended up costing a district a million dollars in court? Better to err on the side of caution, they think. Unfortunately, that caution may also be a violation of an individual's rights.
I think that most Christians in this nation are just inexperienced in having opposition to our beliefs. Christianity was and still is the dominant religion in the country. There are effects to being in the majority, and one is that you get lazy and develop a sense of entitlement. When things don't go your way, you feel overly offended. Another word for it is wimpy.
How different this is from the experience of the early Christians and some other Christians throughout history. Rather than complaining about the ACLU, we would better spend our time toughening up.
I say again, David, that I appreciate this blog. You present things that need to be heard.
Heddle, I sure like your blog and the topics you choose.
AC
Dean, I am offended by you calling me whimpy! I can no longer function as an adult. You'll hear from my lawyer in the morning!
Brent,
I laughed. Have your lawyer call mine and we can all do lunch.
I guess I'm a bit slow but I've somehow lost the continuity between Cool Pastor Leland who disdains the aid of law for defense of the truth and the ACLU who is defending personal rights to express truth.
Sorry Dave, I've always been in the "B" stream. Maybe you can help me see the subtlety
Wayne,
(Gee it's a tough spot to be in, debating an elder of my church!)
On the one hand, Christians can certainly claim their legal rights. Paul claimed his right as a Roman citizen. When this is necessary, the ACLU might provide help, as it did in the case of the 2nd grader.
On the other hand, neither Jesus nor Paul taught that we should form political action committees or make getting one of our own installed as emperor a high priority. Though it would fund murder, including his own, Jesus said: pay the Roman tax.
I don't see any conflict here. Leyland's statement:
"The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever...Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians."
is very libertarian, and not, as I see it, in opposition to a Christian claiming the rights that all other citizens are afforded (no less, and--perhaps to the point, no more.)
I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and an Evangelical Christian (Sola Scriptura/Calvinist type)
David -
Here is a statement we can constructively argue about: "On the other hand, neither Jesus nor Paul taught that we should form political action committees or make getting one of our own installed as emperor a high priority."
This seems to be a "WWJD" style argument; Jesus had no reason to discuss political action committees with those who lived in a dictatorship. But we might be able to extract from Scripture applicable principles. I think a Scripturally informed political action would seek to create a government that does good rather than evil and protects Christians from those who would harm us (funding religious schools might be going too far but creating legal protections for homeschooling would be ok). Would you be willing to refine your statement further?
I would also like to raise the point that Leyland might not have been able to envision the depths of depravity that a secular state can sink to. It may be empirically discovered that only a Christian commonwealth (or one like it in form if not law) can protect and uphold human dignity. And with apologies to GCT and others for the offense, it is my opinion that we will not see how very low humanity can go until the last of our accumualated Christian capital has been spent.
Finally, this leads me to my critique of libertarianism, which I believe relies on the assumption that people can and do make rational, informed decisions and that there is some desire for the common good. The less I believe this description fits the US, the less I believe that libertarian solutions will work.
Alexander,
You raise some valid points. Yes, I am extrapolating from how Jesus and the apostles behaved under tyranny to how we are to behave under democracy—and maybe I’m doing it wrong. However—if we agree that the bible teaches all that we need to know to live as Christians, then there must be a sensible way to do the extrapolation. In principle, I’m actually a huge supporter of WWJD arguments.
Anyway, the extrapolation as I see it is simple: be a good citizen. Let your Christianity be a guide for your voting. But don’t create huge political machines like the Moral Majority or FOTF—in that case, in my opinion, the priorities are all wrong. If people are to hate us, let them hate us for preaching the gospel, not for enforcing upon them that they are to live by our rules.
After winning the day in the Jerusalem council, so that circumcision would not be required, Paul instructs Timothy to undergo the procedure. Why? So that Timothy would not offend those Jews to whom he would witness. I think there is an important lesson there--which is at least somewhat applicable.
David -
I'm sympathetic to that argument, particularly the part about what people should hate us for. If I thought those organizations existed primarily for the purpose of accumulating power, I would dislike them as well.
"This is such an obvious and egregious violation of the 1st Amendment that, after settling with the student and apologizing, the school board should fire the responsible officials for being so stupid. Their ignorance cost the system time, money, and credibility."
I wouldn't be so harsh on the school authorities, especially if it's a small school. Most school administrators are Christian and you can be pretty sure that the conservative Christians among them are told several times a week that "The Supreme Court has taken God out of our schools." and worse - and they hear that from their pastors and other religious authorities. People at the larger schools probably have lawyers on retainer to educate them, but not so for small school administrators.
Here's the thing. The ACLU files more than 6,000 cases per year. It's inevitable that some of the causes they take up are going to reflect our beliefs. But citing these isolated incidents does not change change the fact that the overall mission of the ACLU since it has been founded (it's founder was a Communist/Stalin sympathizer) has been anti-Christian.
The ACLU has consistently fought for abortion rights, gay/lesbian rights, and for removing Christian symbols from public areas. They have bullied countless school boards, city councils and municipalities with the threat of expensive litigation. They have harassed groups like the Boy Scouts and supported groups like NAMBLA (North AMerican Man Boy Love Association).
Jesus called us to be salt and light to the world, and as sure as that means to call individuals to repentance it also means to call our culture to repentance. Whining about theACLU might be "wimpy" and and an insufficient response to our culture's needs but that sounds better than what a lot of the above commenters are doing. It sounds like they're just whining about other Christians refusing to stand on the sidelines.
Matthew,
I don't know what comments you are referring to, but I am hardly calling for Christians to stand on the sidelines, unless you consider preaching the gospel "standing on the sidelines."
Standing on the sidelines in the political/cultural arena. Forgive me if I misspoke, but it seems you advocate this rather new idea among evangelicals that Christians should not be involved in the cultural/political realm. However, with babies' lives at stake, non-participation is simply something we cannot afford.
Matthew,
It is not a new idea. And I don't advocate that we do nothing--the entire political playing field is available to those who want to take advantage of it. What I find distressing and unbiblical are huge political machines/lobbies such as the Moral Majority-- organizations will, time and time again, attempt to extend their reach beyond abortion and into, for example, foreign policy. Furthermore, we find, throughout history little reason to hope that Christians placed in political power are any better at resisting the misuse of that power.
The equivalent to abortion in Jesus' time was abandonment. Unwanted children of the Roman empire were simply dropped somewhere to die. Surely Jesus and the apostles were against this practice. Yet wide-scale organizing against this (or any of a number of culture war issues of their times) was never contemplated or advised.
Matthew: Your premisses are wrong. You seem to believe that if we simply make abortion illegal, outlaw gay marriage, etc, then these problems are solved. This is both incorrect and unscriptural.
You do not save souls by outlawing behavior. You save then by changing lives. Recall that Paul's argument in Romans 1 is not that the various behaviours he lists are sins. Rather, he claims that each action is a consequence of sin. A symptom.
Political action against behaviors is pointles, save for stating where one stands. To truly stop the behavior, call for repentance. If it worked for Ninevah, it can change Washington.
Much bigger discussion than I want to get involved with here. My main point is that the ACLU is not good. It is not something we should, "all in all" like. It is an organization whose worldview runs completely contrary to the Christian worldview. That does not mean that in every one of their countless cases they will be against our beliefs or values. It does mean that their mission though is fundamentally opposed to the Christian faith.
Matthew,
I understand—I don’t want a big discussion either. I’ll just finish my point by suggesting that you might want to make a distinction between a fundamentally anti-Christian organization and one that is not anti-Christian but has its own, largely orthogonal agenda that, more often than not, is not aligned with the Christian cultural worldview (as defined by a majority of American evangelicals.) I would argue that the ACLU is in the latter category—with the proof being that, on those occasions when the paths do align the ACLU does not make excuses in order to avoid defending Christians. If it did, then I would agree that it was anti-Christian.
Thanks for stopping by.
Dave,
Thanks for showing me that not all Christians are as mindless in their political views as Matthew.
kehrsam,
This exact line of reasoning is one I've argued to the limit of reason with many of my believing friends, to no avail.
They agree with me that outlawing "sin" doesn't make it stop, but they somehow think that this relieves them of any further responsibility and that it will somehow prevent God from pouring out wrath on their country, or something.
Of course, I have to laugh at the sorts of inane political claims made by Christians who side with Republicans on choice and war, or on welfare and faith-based charities, or on tax cuts and social programs. They seem to have little, if any, realization that their new "God's Own Party" does very little to promote the sort of social agenda that the Social Gospel Evangelicals were behind, and in fact opposes it in many cases.
To me, the funniest thing is the way the "leaders" of the new politico-religious alliance flaunt their connection with the White House. These guys will topple like a bunch of bowling pins under the corrupting power of Washington if it continues -- not that it will, since it's almost 2008 already, and Congress turned away from them. But people like Dobson are just hilarious for not only repeating the talking points against gay marriage, but for plugging the war too. Puppets on a string.
A lot of words being put in my mouth I think:
"You do not save souls by outlawing behavior. You save then by changing lives."
"They agree with me that outlawing "sin" doesn't make it stop, but they somehow think that this relieves them of any further responsibility and that it will somehow prevent God from pouring out wrath on their country, or something."
First of all, I'm not a Republican lackey. I think they might be the worst political party ever except for all the others (to play on a Winston Churchill quote). I do usually vote that way but almost exclusively because of the abortion issue.
As far as the first quote above, I ask why we have to choose one or the other. Why can't we fight to outlaw immoral behavior and trying to win souls/change lives. I think the main problem I see with this line of thinking is that it is a false choice. There are several churches/ministries that do both and I think that is the model we need to be following.
As far as the second quote, outlawing abortion would be a great thing. How about wanting to outlaw it for the reason that it would save lives. It might not change hearts and I'm not sure on the whole God's wrath thing, but the fact that less babies would be killed should make it a worthy cause in and of itself.
Finally David, you said, "I’ll just finish my point by suggesting that you might want to make a distinction between a fundamentally anti-Christian organization and one that is not anti-Christian but has its own, largely orthogonal agenda that, more often than not, is not aligned with the Christian cultural worldview." Disagree with you there. I do not hesitate to call the ACLU evil, in its origin and in how it carries out it's "worldview." After all, if you're not for God, then you're...
Commenting by HaloScan
