tothesource

Responses to Rethinking the "Cosmic Wall":

Dr wiker's insight that the constitution's separation of church and state relates to a NATIONALLY IMPOSED religion , not a secularization of the USA is brilliant. Thank you for printing his reply. - G. S.

Greetings. I receive your electronic newsletter. I do enjoy their perspective. I would like to you use the question and the Dr. Wilker for a local letter to the editor. Is it possible to get a release to do so? Also, your letter referenced an earlier web newsletter, but didn't list who Dr. Wilker is. Do you have any material on his credentials. I think his article is perfect answer. - G. W. D.

Dr. Wiker wrote: "Today, in America we are caught in that very struggle that bubbled up in the French Revolution between Christians and radical Secularists. The common moral ground has dropped out, and hence we are torn, as a nation, between those who hold to the moral world of Christianity and those who hold to the moral world of Secularism." However, there is not one "moral world of Christianity." The tearing apart of mainstream denominations in the U.S. is proof of that, unless Dr. Wiker is ready to dismiss as "secularists" all of the Christians in those denominations who do not hold to a traditional view of various moral issues, such as inclusion of gay and lesbian persons in the church. In my book, Moral Values: What I Learned Growing Up in Church, I describe two worlds as well. One world is driven by fear, by exclusion, by strict boundaries of doctrine and behavior. The other world is driven by love, by inclusion, and by an openness to mystery in our world. Neither one is secular. I am convinced that both have firm roots in ancient Christian traditions and faith. - J. R.

Doctr Wiker may be right in most of what he has said about our founding fathers but I can't agree that half of the were commited Deists. A reading of Washington's writing and statements shows a strong Christian influence and my understanding of Franklin is a belief in God but very little interest in theology. - B.

I was assigned to the Selective Service System of 18 years, and during that time came to understand the definition of "religion" in great depth and detail. The Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), from its origin and as amended, specifically states that conscientious objection must be based on religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently interpreted "religious beliefs" to mean "any deeply held moral beliefs" in an early 1970's ruling: Welch v. U.S., I believe, or perhaps Seeger v. U.S. Both rulings are germane to this issue, as one was a decision that an individual did not have to believe in a supreme being for the views to be religious; e.g. Buddhism. My point is that secularism, as the U.S Supreme Court has decided, is, itself, a religion. In fact, if we take the body of Supreme Court decisions regarding the separation of church and state, the exercise clause, establishment clause, and all things together, we find that secularism is the de facto official religion of the U.S., to the exclusion of traditional religions. Perhaps a creative federal legislator will some day soon craft a bill that explicitly recognizes this fact, and remove all doubt. - L. T.

As a religious Jew who grew up in a very secular home, attended public schools, and only later in life became more religiously observant, I must tell you that I think you are seriously wrong in many of your articles encouraging more religious "expressions" in public institutions. You are viewing the issue from the perspective of the "dominant" faith, and you appear totally clueless about the way that this offends people of minority faiths (including atheism). To step back a minute, though, I do agree with you that one of the worst problems in society today is the general antagonism to religion as a whole. This message is communicated nonstop through our entertainment and communications media; the more religious a person is, the more intolerant and closed-minded he is; the more unreligious, the more open and cool and hip he is. This is a problem that goes far beyond our public institutions, and in fact it is wrong to think that we can correct the societal attitude by having our public schools and governmental bodies make professions of religiosity. The articles you publish that address this larger problem are more to the point and helpful. But we cannot use our public schools and government functions to profess our religiosity: it does very little, if any, good in propagating true belief and faith, and it does a lot of harm. Having grown up in the 1950s and 60s, before public schools were cleansed of such things, I can remember many occasions as a child where Christmas carols (not the ambiguous "seasonal" songs but true religious hymns) were sung without any regard for the beliefs of others, where prayers "in Christ's name" were said by a minister or by a teacher or principal at school gatherings, and these truly sent the message home to me that I was a "guest" in a "Christian" country, and that I ought to behave like a polite guest. I am also very amenable to teachers discussing at great length the religious sources of our history, the contributions of religious leaders, and the general ideas of the various religions in substantive courses. But starting school or a football game or a graduation ceremony with a prayer that is inevitably a specific expression of an individual's religious belief is just wrong, and it makes the "nonbelievers" feel like second class citizens. - R. P.

Dr Wiker wrote: "In all thirteen, there was some kind of establishment by law; if not on the state level, it occurred on the level of the town." How can Dr Wiker ignore Pennsylvania and Rhode Island? Pennsylvania had an Edict of Toleration, the only church it established was toleration itself. And there was no no iron wall tween church and state; all parties were welcome to bring their faith into their political life, this included such pariahs at the time as Jews and radical Anabaptists. Please do not forget this extradinary and inspiring contibution by the Society of Friends. The writers of both the Declaration and the Constitution surely didn't, and couldn't, since they met in Philadelphia, a large, prosperous, tolerant city(3rd largest in the British Empire at the time of the Declaration.) Toleration obviously worked and still worked. The point is that faith itself can not, should not and was never meant to be divorced from political life. In order to ensure this no single church was established -- meaning, all churches were welcome. The Secularists are still wrong in wanting their iron wall, but do not minimize the importance of toleration. It is the cornerstone of the keystone state, one the builders never meant to reject. - K. W.

Dr Wilker obviously needs to read about john Leland and the Virginia Baptists who championed the first amendment to the Constitution and even stated something about a persons religious beliefs including pagans should not hinder public service. - L. A.

I am a strong proponent for "separation" because of the clear record of Baptist support that lobbied hard for the First Amendment. My ancestors knew only too well the harsh persecution of those who dared to practice their "illegal" Christian faith in England and the early colonies. Yes, the Puritans had a yearning for "the city on the hill" but that vision did not include anyone but themselves. Their intolerance mimicked the intolerance and persecution of the English crown. The earliest Baptist writings reflect a strong conviction that all religions should be tolerated, except any form that produced violence or social disintegration. Thomas Jefferson was not reacting against the religious intolerance of an England across the Atlantic, but against the religious injustice of his own Virginia government. He feared more than federal religious intolerance. He feared the pattern of intolerance reflected in states like Virginia and Massachusetts that would divide this new nation. The idea that religion should be excluded from the marketplace or the political arena is bogus. BUT the idea that any single religious group should determine policy or have primary control is exactly what the founders did not have in mind. Faith must shape individuals whether they be business people or politicians. There is room in the world of politics for moral and religious convictions. What we have in our nation today is an unhealthy marriage of one particular religious viewpoint with an equally strong political agenda ... the result more often resembles intolerance and imperialism than the ideals of democracy. If we cannot or will not learn from the tragedies of the past, we are doomed to an infectious division that will destroy the dream of freedom and render party affiliations meaningless. Freedom of religion is the foundation of all our other freedoms. - M. O.

Dr. Wiker's response, a special pleading, is faulty in its logic, contemptuous of history and, strangest of all - unconstitutional ! - J. B. S.

I tremendously enjoy the thought-provoking articles on current social issues. I forward many tothesource articles to friends. Keep up the excellent work! - M. S.