SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE – IT’S A GOOD THING – REALLY – I PROMISE.

(I’ve posted about this subject before, but news reports today really got my hackles up – although I have to admit that I’m not exactly sure what “hackles” are).

The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments regarding the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses in Texas and Kentucky. This is an emotionally charged issue that tends to bring out the zealot in all of us regardless of which side of the issue we are on.  I am a committed Christian who attended Bible College and Seminary, and spent 17 years in the ministry. I know that many of my Christian friends find the notion of taking down the Ten Commandments in federal buildings reprehensible, and completely contrary to the principles they feel this nation was founded on.

If the statement above describes your feelings, I’m going to try and persuade you that it is in your best interest to be part of the group on the courthouse steps that are shaking their fists, and demanding that the Ten Commandments be taken down.

How could I possibly feel this way you ask? To understand why, I want to do a very brief review of your high school or college American History class.

In the early 1600’s, people from many different religious groups in England and Europe began to flee to America in order to escape religious persecution. These groups included the Puritans, Quakers, Mennonites, Anabaptists, and others.  These groups tended to settle geographically and by the time the American Revolution arrived we were an emerging nation polarized by religious beliefs and doctrines. When our constitutional fathers wrote into their constitution a Bill of Rights they both remembered religious persecution and recognized the growing polarization of the religious community. The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments, the first of which states:  

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.

An incredibly interesting thing happened. When it became illegal for the state to establish religion or for any religious group to persecute another, religion exploded in America. Many historians refer to that newly created climate of acceptance and tolerance as an “era of religious entrepreneurship.”  The concept of separation of church and state actually created the climate that made America the “Christian Nation” we seem to hold so sacred in our national psyche.

Now here we are over two hundred years later and the religious community that was made strong and vital by the First Amendment wants to do everything in its power to begin to blur the lines drawn by it.

Here is the heart of the issue: The first amendment protects your right to worship as you see fit. It also protects the rights of others who don’t hold your views to worship or not worship as they see fit. You can’t have one without the other.  Christians are up in arms about the Ten Commandments being taken out of courthouses. If excerpts from the Koran were posted in courthouses, they would be the first group to storm the steps and demand they be taken down.  You simply can’t have it both ways.  I saw a placard in a news article that went straight to the heart of the matter. It read: “Freedom of religion depends on freedom from religion.”  We may not like that, but it is central to our continuing ability to go to the church of our choice this coming Sunday.

So if you believe in the Ten Commandments; if you want to be free to treasure them and practice them; if you want to be able to teach them to your children; then you want separation of church and state to remain a clear cut principle and if the issue is pressed, you’ll vote to have the Ten Commandments taken out of your local courthouse.

With that being said, I do want to air a pet-peeve. The ACLU is not helping their cause by being overly reactionary. The spirit of the First Amendment is tolerance. The ACLU is so anti-religion that actual tolerance is the farthest thing from their minds. Even though the First Amendment states that government shall make no law respecting religion, it is ridiculous to not realize that, from an historical perspective, religion has had a great deal to do with our national heritage.  If a choice is forced, you have to err on the side of a strict interpretation of the First Amendment, but why is it always necessary to force a choice?  I’ll make you a deal. I won’t be offended by atheism, if you won’t be offended by “In God we Trust.” What do you say? 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE – WHY HAVE YOU FAILED ME NOW?

I turned 46 last September. That is still close enough to 45 to be able tell people that I’m in my “mid forties”, but it’s near enough to 50 that I’m getting AARP literature in the mail (however, I have not yet developed a desire to eat dinner at Piccadilly Cafeteria at 4:30 in the afternoon).

At this age, I find that I’m having trouble trying to determine how to appropriately address people who are younger than I am. I’m old enough that when I talk to a ten year old girl or boy I actually hear terms like “sweetie” and “young man” come out of my mouth. However, I’m still young enough to remember that when I was 10 and some old geezer called me “young man” it made me want to kick him in the balls.  English language – why have you failed me now?

Let’s examine what terms are currently available for both genders:

For Women – “Sweetie” or “Sweetheart” might be ok for a three year old, but taking into consideration the sophistication of kids today, it becomes inappropriate pretty quickly after that. In fact, if I were to call a 25 year old woman “sweetie” I’d better be ready to get kick-boxed into next week. “Miss” works ok, but at what age does it become appropriate to switch to the more matronly “Mam?”  I feel silly calling a contemporary “miss”, but if I use “mam” too early, I often get the “who the hell are you calling mam?” look.

For Men -   It’s even tougher when it come to guys. I hated “young man” when I was young because I thought it sounded condescending, and there isn’t really a corresponding word to “miss” in the English language. At my age, calling a 16 year old boy “sir” just seems silly, and using a colloquialism like “dude” or “bro” would make me look like a friggin idiot.

Being a good Democrat, I’m all about political correctness and showing appropriate respect for people of all ages in each gender, but I’m at a total loss on this subject. Can you help me? I know I have some readers who are college age and I have others who are my age.  For those of you in college, how do you like to be addressed? How did you like to be addressed 10 years ago?  For those of you who are my age (especially women), how do you want to be addressed? How do you feel about the Miss/Mam dilemma? 

Help give this old dude a clue.