Dangerous Faith

July 7, 2002

by John F. Schmidt

It seems ironic that 226 years after the American Declaration of Independence, it took a Supreme Court decision to allow taxpayer-financed vouchers for private and religious schools. It is even more ironic that the decision was a 5-4 split along markedly ideological lines instead of a 9-0 decision ratifying what would have been an obvious decision to the Founders. We’ve come a long way, baby.

Conservatives have been rejoicing in the recent decision, but a closer look at the dissenting Justice’s opinions does not give much cause for comfort. All four of the dissenters take the position, in one degree or another, that it is dangerous for society to encourage parents to pass on their religion to their children.

Several of the dissenters expressed grave concern that the majority’s decision could lead to “a form of religiously based conflict potentially harmful to the nation’s social fabric.” Those are strange words indeed from one of the highest judicial officials of the only nation founded by and for Christians. They came here to live unfettered by the state, and made their religion the basis for our whole society. The orderly and stable culture founded by those religious practitioners was a phenomenal success.

Justice John Paul Stevens’ concern was based on his “understanding” that our religious forbearers decided to migrate to this continent because of religious strife. The implication of his comments is that he believes they came here to escape from religion. The truth is that they came here rather to practice it unhindered. Historically, they were escaping from persecution of their fundamental Bible-based beliefs - which is the very sort of belief Justice Stevens was so concerned about in his dissent. If Justice Stevens and his fellow dissenters have their way in the future, the religious descendants of the people who fled Europe due to religious persecution may someday have to flee America for the same reason.

The dissenters are liberals, of course. Specifically, they are Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. They represent the cultural elite in our society who, if they profess any belief in God at all, are unapologetic in their rejection of its significance in their lives. They are the sort who looks at the Bible as a collection of folk tales of dubious accuracy, or downright dangerous teachings. They reject the idea that the Bible speaks authoritatively on any subject. The liberals, in their own minds, are gods.

To them, anyone who believes the Bible is the Word of God is incredibly obtuse or uneducated - and terrifyingly dangerous. They tend to lump all religious expression, from Islamic Jihadism to Biblical Christianity together and brand them all as destabilizing to society. Therefore, the use of “tax money” to educate up and coming citizens in any kind of serious religion is viewed as a serious threat to the stability of the society.

In response to this perceived threat, these jurists see the first amendment as a tool to strip believers in God of their ability to educate their children in their religion. Although the first amendment was adopted to prohibit government from establishing a state religion, the liberals in re-interpreting the word “religion” to mean any reference to God, have used the Constitution to drive any mention of God from public life. Ironically, the liberal judges’ interpretation of the establishment clause is a de-facto “establishment” of the religion of “no-God,” (atheism) as America’s public religion. Their interpretation therefore is a direct violation of the Constitution.

The concept of vouchers being available to those who would send their children to religious schools is in the mainstream of the first amendment as the Founders envisioned it. No one religious group is singled out as the official beneficiary of the vouchers. They are available to all, regardless of religious belief or practice. Leaving the public marketplace of ideas equal and open was the intention.

If the dissenting judges had their way only one religious point of view would be government sponsored, (as it has been in US public schools for the last 40 years.) It would be the atheist’s view. (Don’t object that atheism isn’t a religion. A previous U.S. Supreme Court recognized them as a non-theistic religion.)

The liberal justices’ regard the result of the religious beliefs of all people of serious faith as potentially equivalent to the 9-11 Muslims Jihadists. Justice Stevens even referred in his dissent to “the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East” as examples of religious violence that could occur if school vouchers were allowed to fall into the hands of religious parents. So he regards religious training as dangerous.

Are religious ideas dangerous? Some definitely are (Islam, for instance.) All false religions and perversions of the truth are dangerous. The task of a free society is to continually examine all ideas and reject the false and maintain the true. The method adopted by our Founders to assure that the truth could be heard and hopefully prevail was to prohibit the government from inhibiting free speech and religion. There is not a word about restricting the citizens.

One example of the danger that the liberal’s religion constitutes is the example of our failed public schools. The school monopoly was captured in mid-twentieth century by the liberal establishment and they have been using education to slowly strangle the original American Judeo-Christian culture ever since. The battle for vouchers is really a battle for who can direct the culture: the parents or the liberal elitists.

The results are definitely in; the liberal’s atheistic faith is toxic to our culture. But they die-hard. Meryl Johnson, a vice president of Cleveland’s teachers union, said she’s “disappointed, not surprised” by the Courts’ voucher decision and said it would lead to “the devastation of our public schools.” What planet does Ms Johnson live on? The reason that parents sought vouchers in the first place was the existing “devastation” of our public schools. Had the parents been able to continue to instill our cultural and religious heritage in the public schools as they had been doing until God was banned, it is doubtful that vouchers would have ever become an issue.

Whose faith is the most dangerous, the historic American Judeo-Christian faith that honors the rights given to men by God, or the new Liberal faith of men in themselves and their own wisdom? (Romans 1:22 is still true.)

__________________________________________

John F. Schmidt has written numerous articles over the last decade. Politically, he is an Alan Keyes-type Republican. Along with his wife, he has organized voter drives in Pennsylvania, and been active politically since the 1990 elections. His livelihood, until recently, was spent in automation engineering for a large global equipment manufacturing company, specializing in coal mining. WANB in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania hosted Schmidt's weekly talk radio program "Issues and Answers." His writing is intended to relate the headlines of today to the foundation of eternal truth - the Scriptures. He currently resides in Palm Beach County, Florida. Visit his website at: Inalienable-Rights.org

Send the author an E mail at Schmidt@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of John's articles, visit his archives.


Site Meter


To comment on this article, please send us an e mail.

To send this article to a friend, click here.

For a full issue of Conservative Truth, available only to our subscribers,
please join our list! To subscribe click here.
Conservative Truth Home Page OpinioNet Home Page
Home Tom Barrett About Us Aldrich Alert Humor
Subscribe Contact Us Links Search Archives