Earlier this week, one of my frequent email sparring partners forwarded me an article by Charles Colson. Colson, some of you may know, is a conservative Christian evangelist well-known for his prison ministries. He has ample understanding of prison. What a lot of people forget about Colson is that he served seven months in federal prison back in '74.
Colson was special counsel to Richard Nixon, and as you probably have presumed, part of the Watergate scandal. Not only part of it, but (per historian Stanley Kutler) he was responsible for some truly lovely things. He tried to hire some goons to beat the crap out of anti-war demonstrators and planned either a raid or a firebombing the prestigious Washington think tank, the Brookings Institution. He ended up pleading guilty of plotting to defame Daniel Ellsberg and of interfering with his trial. (Ellsburg was one of those who leaked information out of the Nixon White House, including "The Pentagon Papers," which showed how we'd botched up in Vietnam.)
With profits from his bestselling book, Born Again, Colson founded Prison Fellowship Ministries. He's a proponent of prison reform, and was even given (by George W. Bush) a wing of a Texas prison to run by Christian principles (or at least, his idea of them). Some studies show that his programs work. But make no mistake. Colson's goal is not rehabilitation or reform, but evangelism. Bringing people to Jesus is the avowed goal of his life, and he seems willing to go to any length to accomplish this.
Once upon a time, Colson was fairly polite, as evangelists go. He would criticize many right-wing preachers for being too self-righteous. But these days, his tone has changed and he's not much different than those he used to condemn. He's anti-evolution, anti-gay rights, and wants the Ten Commandments displayed in all government buildings.
Charles Colson seems to be a man who did not reform, exactly. He seems more to have exchanged one power trip for another. Where he used to abuse the power of his government position, now he wields the power of the religious zealot. His activities for prison reform are interesting, in that he wants prisoners to have more rights. And yet, he is adamantly against certain rights for millions of law-abiding citizens.
This isn't a man interested in rights. This is a man interested only in influencing the private lives of others and using religion as his tool, as so many others have done throughout history, and continue to do so today. He's not reached the slimy level of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell yet. But give him time.
Now then, let me turn my attention to the article that was forwarded to me. According to the disclaimer at the bottom of the email, it is a "rush transcript," which means it might not be the final version of the article. Be that as it may, I'm reprinting it here and responding. All blockquoted material is Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. It is titled, "Defending Our Right to Pray: A Not-So-Quiet Revolution," from BreakPoint with Charles Colson, Commentary #001002 - 10/02/2000. My comments are interspersed between quotes from the article.
For the past several days I've been talking about religious liberty and how our American system of government is deeply rooted in Christian principles.
A myth. Our government is not rooted in Christian principles whatsoever. Some aspects of our laws have things in common with certain Judeo-Christian precepts, but these ideas were not original to these religions. "Thou shalt not kill" is not the basis of our laws against killing, for example. Such laws are older than Mosaic law and are found in areas of the world that had never heard of Judaism.
I've also talked about the rise of practical atheism, the persecution of Christians around the world, and the importance of Christian influence in media and law.
Persecution of Christians in America is grossly exaggerated. (For that matter, persecution of them throughout history has been exaggerated.) Christians here today are treated with kid gloves. I challenge any Christian to go for one month in this country while pretending to be an outspoken atheist. Only then will they see what religious persecution is like.
Elsewhere in the world, any persecution they're suffering is no different than the persecution by Christians that's been done for 2000 years.
As for Christian influence in the media and law, it's important only to Christians. Why should any non-Christian see it as being any more important than any other influence?
As I've pointed out over these days, in the past fifty years, the secular culture has been trying to silence believers.
Rubbish. Our culture mollycoddles believers. Everywhere you look, people are talking about god or Jesus, and it is generally viewed as a positive thing. And while some of us find this offensive, we're not out to silence anyone. Unless, of course, people are trying to inject religious expression into government or government-sponsored forums. Then, yes. We will insist that the practices be stopped, as they violate the Constitutional rights of the rest of us.
But Christians are now saying, "enough is enough," as the protests on high school campuses made clear. When told their right to pray was forbidden, thousands have defied the orders and openly prayed.
No one's right to pray was forbidden. The only thing forbidden was the use of government-funded property as a forum for prayer.
When TIME magazine reported on this outbreak of Christian resistance, they called it a "not-so-quiet revolution." In communities all across America, citizens have rejected Court-imposed secularism.
Another myth. The only imposed secularism is on our government and the things it controls, including public property, public schools, and the like.
In Arkansas, for example, football fans left the bleachers and knelt in prayer with the athletes and cheerleaders at mid-field. In Tennessee, students formed a human chain around the field. And in towns like Forest City, North Carolina, fans tuned their portable radios to a local station to hear a pastor's prayer before the game.
And since these were functions of government-funded schools, these acts are in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
But this kind of dissent doesn't sit well with those who'd like to silence Christians. Steven Shapiro of the ACLU said he's "very disappointed" with what's been going on, and he warned that his group will be "watching what's happening very closely." Well, from the looks of it, he'll need a lot of watchdogs. But the sore head award goes to Barry Lynn, of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, who said the protests were like a well-known obscene gesture being made at the Court.
Only raving paranoids (i.e., religious nuts) think that such groups are out to silence them. The ACLU defends religious people from persecution, in case these folks hadn't noticed. But it also defends the Constitution. The real problem is that these religious nuts are trying to inject religion into government. That's why they see the ACLU as a threat.
A more sensible assessment came from Frank Deford of Sports Illustrated who said, "prayer in the American stadium is not an issue that will fade gently away." You can't stop Americans from standing up and praying any more than you can stop them from cheering the home team.
No one's trying to stop them from praying. Anyone is free to pray to him- or herself at any time. But they are not allowed to pray over loudspeakers in a public forum.
For protesters, Deford said, being told not to pray before a game isn't an extension of the ban on prayer in school. These games often involve the whole community, and banning prayer on the field is like banning everybody from praying, and that's an idea that just won't fly. He's right about that.
No, he's not. See above.
The fact that the whole community is often involved is all the more reason not to have prayers there. Is the whole community of the same religion? Unless you're in Utah, probably not. So whose prayer do you use?
If a group of Satanists or Muslims or Wiccans or Scientologists were to do the same things as these Christians, utilizing public areas for their prayers, would the Christians be happy about it? No, they would not. Would Catholics be happy about being constantly exposed to fundamentalist Protestant prayers at football games? No more than Protestants would be happy about constant references to saints and popes and whatnot.
This is exactly the same as prayer in public schools. Not all students are of the same faith, and many are of no faith. The community is the same way. You simply cannot please everyone by providing their prayer of choice (especially those who choose no prayer). Therefore, the only way to pacify everyone (as our founders wisely saw) was to offer no prayer. To keep religion and government completely separate.
A spoken prayer has the potential to offend many. A silent prayer offends none. Just like having religion in government.
In all these issues, the courts and other institutions have overstepped their authority.
On the contrary. This is entirely with their authority, as anyone with an actual understanding of our Constitution will realize.
Praying for the safety of our kids isn't a threat to anyone, and it's not something the law can ban.
Correct. Nor has the law ever attempted to do so. But of course, this is pertaining to silent prayer, as I've been saying. These whiners, however, are insisting on having their prayers said aloud, for as many people as possible to hear. It's arrogance at work here, not piety. They're not upset about not being able to pray; they're upset about not being able to inflict their prayers on others. But such a right simply does not exist.
Customs like these are precisely what the religion clauses of the First Amendment were designed to protect. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not from it.
Wrong. The First Amendment guarantees both. If there is no freedom from religion, there can never be true freedom of religion.
And when government tries to suppress our liberties, we have a right to stand up and say no.
Yes, you do. But you do not have the liberty to impose your prayers on others in a government setting. Your liberties are not being suppressed because you've never had those liberties. Get used to it.
But in all these instances, it's important that we make our case thoughtfully and responsibly, bearing in mind that we're not just citizens but followers of Christ. Violence, or rude, or even angry behavior is never appropriate; but, at the same time, failing to speak up when our basic freedoms are threatened would be just as wrong.
Coming from someone who once planned a firebombing, it's a relief to hear the non-violent talk. But you must realize that your "basic freedoms" are not at stake here.
No one is trying to take your right to pray away from you. You may do that whenever and wherever you like, so long as it is silently. You may perform verbal prayers on private property as you please. But when it comes to public property (and remember, that means property owned by the government, paid for by the tax dollars of all Americans, believer and non-believer alike), you do not have the right to foist your faith on others.
As this series has shown, the challenges to religious freedom have never been greater, but there's also never been a better time to demonstrate faith in action. Call us here at BreakPoint and learn about groups that are fighting for religious freedom.
Perceived challenges have never been greater, but this is because Christians (a) generally don't understand what rights they do and don't have, and (b) seem to want to have religion be a part of everything, whether anyone else wants this to be the case or not.
Learn the issues and be prepared to defend religious liberty with your neighbors. And, oh yes, if you are at a football game, stand up and pray.
By all means, learn the issues. But learn the truth of the issues, not just the one-sided rhetoric of those who want to turn this into a "Christian Nation." Learn the truth that religion was never to be part of our government. Read the words of the framers of our Constitution and you'll see this.
The Constitution of the United States of America was deliberately secular. Religion as a part of government was considered, discussed, and soundly rejected. And we were the first nation in the civilized world to do this.
History shows that government and religion do not make good bedfellows. Religion inevitably gains the upper hand, and a theocracy is born. And there has never in the history of the world been a benevolent theocracy. Our own country has seen theocracies, as many of our original settlements were. And they were brutal.
Now, it's a long way, some would argue, from having prayer at a high school football game to having the Inquisition. But is it so far?
Destruction of the wall of separation between church and state is underway. It is done piecemeal, pebble by pebble, and now the wall is in danger of collapsing. With no support, how can it stand?
A totally secular government has always been America's greatest strength. In recent years, we've seen this strength undermined by those who seek to impose their religion upon others. This is dangerous.
And make no mistake: that is the root of it. These people have not had any rights taken away. They simply want it to be easier to spread their faith. For that is what their goal is: to spread far and wide. Much like cancer cells. And, like cancer, the further faith spreads, the more damage is done to the host organism. In this case, our nation.
Yes, I view religious fervor much the same way as I view cancer. I'm sure Mr. Colson would find this to be a reprehensible view, but that's what makes this country great. I can say reprehensible things and so can he. That's what freedom is about.
But if people like Colson get their way, the freedoms of some will far outweigh the freedoms of others. Christians would have the freedom to impose their faith on anyone, anywhere, anytime. Those who would speak against their policies or practices would--have no doubt--be silenced.
That is simply the nature of religious radicals. It always has been and probably always will be. But of course, Charles Colson is a man who loves power. Likely as not, he knows quite well the history of theocracy and how good it can be to those in power. That's where he wants to be, after all.
That's where quite a lot of right-wing evangelists want to be. And if we're not careful, they'll soon be there.
