New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Home arrow Opinion arrow Opinion: In North Georgia, signs of the times?
 
Opinion: In North Georgia, signs of the times? Print E-mail
By Libby Grammer Garrett   
Tuesday, October 06, 2009

(ABP) – Everywhere I have gone this week, from the doctor’s office to Facebook, I find myself inextricably entangled in turbulent conversations about my high-school alma mater’s cheerleaders, their inspirational football-game banners citing passages like, “I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me,” and the unfortunate reactions of many Christians when the school system decided to ban the signs.

From the start, religious leaders (including, sadly, some Baptists) have led the rallying cry against what they perceive as the government's intrusion into the religious affairs of Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School. This has prompted students and parents alike to rally in droves to "fight the man."

What disturbs me most is not the Christian messages on the signs (they were there the two years I played for and led the marching band) but the anger that so many of our fellow Christians have demonstrated in their actions in response to what amounts to rather reasonable legal reckoning by the school board. Their anger is directed at a system they think is seeking to destroy their faith, the person who called the superintendent to raise questions about the legality of the signs, and practitioners of other faiths (who they say get “special treatment” in schools, such as Muslim students who get special rooms to pray or Jewish students who get special excused days off).

Meanwhile, they say, Christians are “martyred” for being the majority.

But of what, exactly, does this martyrdom of Christianity consist? Has the faith died in the public sphere just because the government's schools are limited in their promotion of one faith over another?

I think not. From the start, the true martyrs of the Baptist faith in particular have supported separating religion and government from each other’s control. When the dissenters from Massachusetts Bay Colony, led by Roger Williams, escaped their persecution under the Puritans, they founded Rhode Island -- a state dedicated not to mere religious tolerance, but to full religious freedom. Colonial Baptists such as John Leland continued this rich heritage, influencing the nation’s founding fathers to craft an amendment to protecting the church and the state from each other.

So why have so many Baptists moved away from our heritage in situations like the one in Fort Oglethorpe, Ga.?

I believe the answer is fear. Fear motivates the Christian majority in my little hometown -- fear of being overrun by those who think differently from Southern conservatives, fear of losing their traditions and heritage and fear of losing their majority hold on society.

Cheerleaders at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School have been using Bible verses to motivate players for several years.

It is unfortunate to see so many of my well-meaning sisters and brothers in Christ fighting among themselves, and fighting nonbelievers, against a law that only protects us all from persecution and coercion in matters of conscience. This attitude encourages hatred and scorn for those who disagree, and teaches our students to continue a legacy of bickering -- all for the sake of preserving a “tradition” whose vintage is actually rather recent.

Students, parents, church leaders and lay leaders need to refocus not on the one thing our students cannot do in their school -- that is, proselytizing by official school representatives at football games -- but on what students can do to make an impact for the cause of Christ in their schools and communities. Many organizations are available to students to share the gospel message. Students may join local chapters of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, “Y”-clubs or other student-led Christian groups at local public schools. There, they can serve others while continuing to share Christ with their peers without any intervention by the school to dictate what they can or cannot say.

Focusing on improving relationships with other faiths will bear many fruits for the Kingdom. Mutual understanding is key to opening doors to share our faith in Christ with others, and freedom to do so without interference from government entities is mandatory to avoid reverting to Old World systems of religious control over our public institutions and public control over religious institutions.

Without a change in perspective, these arguments over cheerleading signs will continue to be indicative of the "signs of the times" -- the era in which the Religious Right leads crusades against all others, demonizing well-meaning people (including other Christians) and making a mockery of the command to love our neighbor as ourselves. I hope and pray we can move past this anger-spawned rallying into well-meaning conversation with others about our faith that avoids the debasing rhetoric so apparent in the current dispute.

-30-

Libby Grammer Garrett is an M.Div. student at Mercer University’s McAfee School of Theology in Atlanta and a graduate of Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School in Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia.

 

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP’s staff, board of directors or supporters.





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (21)Add Comment
...
written by wilx1, October 06, 2009
what amounts to rather reasonable legal reckoning by the school board

This statement reveals the complete lack of historical education as to what the 1st amendment means and how it was interpreted until Roosevelt appointed Progressives to the bench. Prior to Roosevelt, authorial intent was given a priority in interpreting the Constitution. Anyone who reads Jefferson's letters and views his actions as President, would have to conclude that neither the Constitution nor the intent of the authors of the Constitution was to ban religious expression by locally owned schools.

The Constitution forbids the Federal government from establishing an official religion but leaves State matters to the States. Which is why Congregationalism, the official religion of Massachusetts until the 1830's, was never viewed as unconstitutional. Neither Jefferson or the Constitution forbids religious expression at the State and local levels as long as it foes not violate the right of others to practice what they believe.
Yes, yes, yes
written by Xenophon, October 06, 2009
Ms. Garrett sez: " So why have so many Baptists moved away from our heritage in situations like the one in Fort Oglethorpe, Ga.?
I believe the answer is fear. Fear motivates the Christian majority in my little hometown -- fear of being overrun by those who think differently from Southern conservatives, fear of losing their traditions and heritage and fear of losing their majority hold on society."

My response: Yes, that is correct. So what? We should rationally fear the destruction of our basic institutions that provide the foundation for communal life, Americans' unconscious assumptions that affect all of our practices (economic, legal, political, social), the rhythms and expectations of everyday life and common sense. Leftist social engineers have attempted for years to restructure our society through interventionist policies taken by the heavy hand of government in order to make it less Christian, less Anglo-Saxon, less Western, less Greco-Roman, etc. in order to create a new pluralistic, egalitarian society. 'Freedom' and 'liberty' have been redefined by those who share Ms. Garrett's vision in terms of 'equality.' Equality has then been redefined from equality in the eyes of the law to equality of condition and status. Hence, we have Ms. Garrett openly embracing unequal treatment of students of competing religions in government schools--e.g. "...practitioners of other faiths (who they say get “special treatment” in schools, such as Muslim students who get special rooms to pray...)". I assume her implicit reasoning here is that we must make special accommodation for non-Christians in order to equalize the outcome in public schools so that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, et al have the same influence and status as Christians.

There is no end to such interventions by the state to enforce equality of result since people will either attempt to get their group's religion and way of life to be the dominant one or things will simply "shake out" that way since some way of life will take hold with winners and losers resulting from spontaneous interactions among individuals who act fairly in their dealings with each other. On the egalitarian/pluralistic paradigm, there will always be the need for an elite who believe that they are being neutral and merely using the iron fist of the state to establish "social justice" and protect the "rights" of minorities as they continually interfere with the competitive process where people non-violently vie for converts and who will be in position to shape the basic institutions of society.

We also see the radical nature of Ms. Garrett's program in her reference to leaving the Old World behind. She says, "[f]ocusing on improving relationships with other faiths will bear many fruits for the Kingdom. Mutual understanding is key to opening doors to share our faith in Christ with others, and freedom to do so without interference from government entities is mandatory to avoid reverting to Old World systems of religious control over our public institutions and public control over religious institutions."

This passage presents the problem with enforced egalitarian pluralism very clearly. We European Christians are giving up our position in the hopes that such generosity will lead to greater understanding and social harmony. Then we can win people to Christianity by our shining example. In response to this grand vision, I would ask Ms. Garrett the following questions. Has any group in history given up their position in a society and not been replaced by another group who dominates them? Would it be better if the U.S. became a Muslim country with Sharia law? Would it be a better country if we moved to an enforced atheist country where religions are completely marginalized? Have diverse people ever lived together in peace and harmony as equals in every sense of the word? Is it possible to have a completely neutral political, social, and legal environment? My answer to each of these questions is a clear NO. What Ms. Garrett is proposing is cultural and religious suicide.

The United States is a European country that has been built on the collected wisdom of thousands of years of human experience with direction provided by the Bible. To throw that heritage away is beyond foolish. We have refined traditional European attitudes toward religion by allowing individuals to worship as they see fit, but there is no evidence that the Founders of the U.S. intended to depart completely from European history nor to equalize all religious perspectives. Consider this interview with Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia on this matter:

http://www.hamodia.com/inthepaper.cfm?ArticleID=370
...
written by Singer, October 06, 2009
Xenophon: We can argue the intent of America's founders forever, but the fact remains that freedom of faith expression must reach beyond European Christianity, as must the gospel. I don't want to be a "European Christian." I am called to be a Christian, period.
Civility
written by mitchc, October 06, 2009
We need to return civility to the Christian dialogue. Our language should reflect the teachings of Jesus. This is why I along with leaders of other denominations published a book, Christian Civility in an Uncivil World. We must learn to respect each other whether we agree or not. That is why we also promote Say Something Nice Sunday on the first Sunday in June each year. One Sunday is not enough but we must start with the possible.
reply to Singer
written by Xenophon, October 06, 2009
Yes, Singer, Christianity is for everyone. Yes, people who choose to believe differently have a right to believe as they so choose. Nothing I said above contradicts those truths. Finally, I do not think what the Founders believed is so obscure. We can review the historical record if you like. There is no evidence that any of the Founders believed in empowering the government to equalize wealth or social status or religious influence.
...
written by KT2005, October 06, 2009
Circumstances like this clearly show that "public" school is a sham. Parents nor communities control their so called "public" schools. Federal bureaucrats, judges, and teachers unions are in full control. There is only one solution: start Christian schools that are truly public and controlled by parents/communities.

People who argue that we need to fix government schools need to wake up. Regular citizens have no power to control what happens at these learning institutions. Jesus Christ has been banned, and how can any education be good when the Truth, even God Himself, is banned? Can science, history, and even literature be properly understood outside of God's revelation? The answer is obvious.

Those who send their children to educators hostile to their faith and in bed with humanism will reap what they sow. . . a disillusioned child who abandons the faith! If you do not believe me just take a little time and look up the statistics. When the world educates your children the Kingdom loses souls.
...
written by BaptDude, October 07, 2009
If they were Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist students putting up quotes that supported an agenda then these Christians would acting in the opposite way. They would be rallying to stop it. End. Of. Story. Wake up people...might doesn't make right. I, for one, am glad to see the 1st Amendment doing what it was meant to be done, which is keep a majority from running wild. Yes, I KNOW that it was written to keep states from establishing religion and I KNOW this is not the state doing that but it is the first step towards something like that if it isn't stopped. Find something to put on your banners...like every other normal high school across the country.
...
written by wilx1, October 07, 2009
Actually Baptdude, the Constitution was written to keep the "Federal" government from establishing a religion, not the State.

If I lived in Utah and the school my children went to was populated by a large Mormon population and at the Football games they printed passages from the book of Mormon, which is not a Christian document, I wouldn't care. I don't have a right to be kept from speech I disagree with and it really does not matter if the message is on the field or in the stands.
...
written by pjerwin, October 07, 2009
Actually, the 1st Amendment -- that is, the first item in the "Bill of Rights" -- is not about protecting a minority, rather it limits the authority of the government, thus protecting the citizenry against the state.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In the free exercise of religion, speech, press, and peaceful assembly, both the majority and minority are protected. Each is free, not to be un-offended, but to express themselves through religious practice, spoken and written word, and by assembling together. The governing authorities at various levels, whether federal, state, local, or organizational, with the complicity of groups like the ACLU, have succeeded in making this an issue that pits one group against another, as if the 1st Amendment was intended to protect us from one another's religion, speech, prose, or assembly, or to free us from being offended. As each of us expresses him or her self, we are free to be offended and to respond by expressing our opinion in any of these forms. So, BaptDude, you are wrong. And the author of this opinion piece is wrong, as well, for this is what short-term, pseudo-Baptist Roger Williams along with genuine Baptists championed. Everyone may, ought to, and really must freely exercise these rights to the fullest and government must stay out of it. The author is wrong on another front as well. This isn't about people's "fear of being overrun by those who think differently from Southern conservatives, fear of losing their traditions and heritage and fear of losing their majority hold on society" (are Southern conservatives a majority?), it's fear of losing our enumerated and guaranteed constitutional freedoms. It's a sad statement that this author has a background in law, but has no more of a grasp on the Constitution than this.
...
written by rdeesjoy, October 07, 2009
Jesus is not banned from schools. Even if a government wrote such a law, who could enforce it? Actually, students are free to pray and discuss their faith rather freely -- as long as they don't disrupt the classroom or interfere in the teaching/learning. As Libby wrote, the only thing that is prohibited is that the AUTHORITIES are not permitted to prosylitize or to condone a particular faith. As a parent of two public school attending children, I am very glad for this! Not only do I want my children subject to participating in "watered-down" Christianity or a politicized Christianity, I also don't want them subject to participating in a religion that is not Christian.

Libby, I wanted to say "Well-written!" You put before us an excellent description of what is and how we can choose to live out our faith in our pluralistic society. I, for one, don't want to return to Old World forms of government-enforced religion nor religion-enforced government. As a student and teacher of history, I know too well that the life of faith was too often lost in such circumstances and replaced by legalism.
A good representation of the current state of the law
written by Arce, October 07, 2009
The author has set forth a good representation of the law. By virtue of the post-civil war amendments and Supreme Court precedents, the first amendment religion clauses have been extended to the states and to the agencies of the state, which includes all political subdivisions of the states, such as cities and school districts. Official action, or actions which have the color of official action, that promote one religion over another or over irreligion are considered contrary to the First Amendment, as a result.

It is a freedom of conscience amendment and, as interpreted by the SCt, bars the use of state facilities, authorities, powers, etc., to advance any religion over any other or none. The cheerleaders are an official school entity, at an official school function, on school property, displaying scripture. That the school officials voluntarily changed this practice when the conflict was called to their attention speaks to their wisdom in avoiding a greater and more costly conflict.

The commenter is a life-long Baptist and an attorney.
Civility
written by mitchc, October 07, 2009
This is an excellent and well reasoned approach to religious differences. This is what led me, along with leaders in other denominations, to publish "Christian Civility in an Uncivil World." This is also the reason that many churches and denominations support Say Something Nice Sunday the first Sunday of June each year. One day is not enough, but we must start with what is possible.
...
written by KT2005, October 07, 2009
rdeesjoy,

Watch this and see what you think. Obama's Safe School Czar defends Man Child sex. Open your eyes people. . . pull children out of public school before its too late!!!

Uncovered Audio: Obama’s ‘Safe Schools Czar’ Encouraged Child Sex With Older Man

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-audio-obamas-safe-schools-czar-encouraged-child-sex-with-older-man/
...
written by BaptDude, October 07, 2009
The 1st Amendment was indeed written to keep the federal government from forming a national religion but it has been used in many Supreme Court cases in other ways. Wilx1, here are my thoughts on what you said: if the book of mormon was used like this, it should have been stopped.

Another issue lies behind all of this: people are saying that JESUS IS BEING TAKEN OUT OF MY SCHOOL or BRING PRAYER BACK TO SCHOOLS! Do you really think any of that is going to fix STDs, pregnancy rates, drugs, and dropout rates? Be honest. Don't lie to yourself. I come from the Bible Belt and some of the most "pious" Christian students who carried their Bibles around got pregnant, dropped out, or used drugs. This ideology about keeping God in schools is a joke because people think letting teachers pray with kids and read the Bible is going to fix everything. It won't. It never has and never will. I guarentee these cheerleaders commit all kinds of sins like judging, lying, lusting, or any other number of things, with or without their banners. Do you want to know how I know? BECAUSE EVERYONE DOES! Christianity is not a band-aid to put over things and make it better; it is a faith to be lived out.

If you cannot live out your faith without putting the Bible in huge letters or oppressing minority religions in your town, then you need to reexamine you faith.
The 21st Century 1st Amendment to the US Constitution
written by pjerwin, October 08, 2009
As it is interpreted and executed today, the 1st Amendment should read as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of any religion except that of Christianity; it shall prohibit the free excercise thereof. It shall abridge the freedom of speech and of the press as it sees fit except with regard to issues of public decency and obscenity, and shall promote liberal ideology using taxpayer dollars through groups like Air America, the National Endowment for the Arts, Planned Parenthood, and ACORN. It shall further abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances as it sees fit. This Amendment shall be subject to change according to prevailing public opinion and legal precedent set forth in the local, state, and federal courts of the land as informed by legal precedents set forth on foreign soil.
...
written by kash, October 12, 2009
Seriously, people. Is a football game really an appropriate forum for Bible verses, regardless of whether it is allowed under the Constitution or not? I mean, do we want to equate the Holy Scriptures with "RA RA RA, SIS BOOM BA"?
...
written by kash, October 12, 2009
And it is simple to fix the situation. Instead of having the cheerleaders hold the signs, have a chapter of the FCA hold the signs. Then it can't be claimed that the school is endorsing a particular religion, and if an extra-curricular Muslim or Atheist club wants to make their own signs, see what happens.
responses to Kash's comments
written by Xenophon, October 13, 2009
Even though the context here is just a high school football game, any situation that comes up in daily life where we can apply biblical language and principles will appear too mundane to be truly influential. But most people most of the time live their lives only in a string of seemingly banal vignettes. The vast majority of people will not experience life as St. John of the Cross going through the "dark night of the soul." Even if some do engage spiritual questions more directly, most of the time, life is not lived in such an intense, deep way. Existential crises are exceptional even for the more introspective, sensitive souls who themselves are relatively rare. So, it is a false assumption to believe that we are protecting a more profound spiritual inquiry by reflective individuals in outlawing ostensibly frivolous religious expression exemplified by this sign.

Even for the sensitive soul as well as for the average person who is immersed in more practical affairs, constant exposure to the symbols and language of the Bible and Christian tradition will imprint on a person's unconscious so that when they do face situations that open them to spiritual questions, Christianity becomes the default position. What conservatives are arguing for is the importance of habit and custom in shaping a person's consciousness. The supposedly neutral approach that involves a cultural cleansing of Christian symbols and language, in effect, creates a spiritually sterile social environment in which people dwell in their daily lives. This so-called neutrality amounts to a de facto state religion of atheism that prejudices persons' unconscious against spiritual approaches to everyday life and Christian spirituality in particular.
...
written by kash, October 15, 2009
"The supposedly neutral approach that involves a cultural cleansing of Christian symbols and language, in effect, creates a spiritually sterile social environment in which people dwell in their daily lives." There are 10 commandment bumper stickers and yard signs all over the South, including my community in rural Alabama. I have yet to find someone who can recite them from memory when the sign is covered. As long as it is private property or a non school sponsored group or individual, they can shellack themselves and their property with Bible verses. Where is the so-called persecution? Where is the lack of spiritual symbols? There is a church every 2 miles in my county, and we don't have a very big population. We just seem to have an inability to worship together, so all the Baptist churches keep splitting.
...
written by kash, October 15, 2009
Also, we have regular prayer vigils on school grounds, just not sponsored by the schools themselves. We have a CHristian youth event of some sort being advertised several times a year all over the county. We have church groups at rural 4 ways stops collecting money most weekends (except for when it is cheerleaders or, and I am not making this up, the KKK). Again, where is the persecution just because at a school sponsored event the school itself should not be making Biblical signs if it is a public institution?
reply to Kash 2
written by Xenophon, October 16, 2009
Schools and extra-curricular activities make up a big part of children's and adolescents' lives. If (Christian) religious influence is removed from that part of a young person's life, that does have an effect. Yard signs and church signs do have an influence, too, but that does not make up for diminishing the prominence and weight of Christian language and symbols in educational institutions. I do agree that we need to teach the substance of Christianity more than we currently do, including Bible instruction in public schools.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.