The Sound and the Fury

I was amazed to read in Liberty (March/April 1998, p. 16) that Judge Moore is "promoting religion" by permitting the display of the Ten Commandments and prayer in his courtroom. If this logic follows, then every vestige of our Christian historical nature is in violation of the First Amendment, which does not say that at all.

The Prayer Room in our nation's capitol displays a Bible and the stained glass window of George Washington praying at Valley Forge. This is permission of religion without promotion of religion which is what the First Amendment allows and prohibits.

Recently I was excoriated in the printed press and by a few members of the House of Delegates in the General Assembly of Maryland for my invocation before the House which they claimed was "sectarian and political". But no one specifically told me not to pray in the name of Jesus, which is the way the majority of Christian denominations pray.

The argument that ensued in my presence in the ante-chamber of the House was that praying in the name of Jesus was promoting the Christian religion and was offensive to non Christians. I tried to explain that permitting was not promoting, and that their taking offense was not religious toleration but religious bigotry.

The issue is that government cannot dictate to the religious how they must pray and what they must say, whether it is politically correct or not. Lawyers and judges looking for loopholes notwithstanding, my major is in the English language, and I read the First Amendment as not promoting, but permitting religious freedom, which restrains government, not religion. Government cannot advocate nor be adverse to religion. To deny permission is to promote adversity. In an age when we are forced to tolerate so many things offensive to Christians, what justifies religious intolerance?

ROBERT T. WOODWORTH, Pastor

Baltimore, Maryland

——————————————————————————–

In respect to the Roy S. Moore case, and whether the Ten Commandments are a fit code for civil government, the question is not, "Are they fit?" but "Which ones?"

Bible scholars know that the Ten Commandment law has two parts: the first four, which define the believer's duty to God; and the last six, which define moral behavior between members of society. The last six commandments are consistent with natural law; one could say they are perhaps the best summary of natural law. (I fear, however, that some have been so far influenced by postmodern thought that they "can't see how.")

So, in respect to Moore case, if he desired to post the second table of the Decalogue in his courtroom, he would have my full support. There is nothing expressly religious about it (the mention of God in the fifth commandment is incidental to its reasonableness). But to post the first table, as a guide or inspiration in matters of law, would be quite out of order.

MICHAEL PREWITT

Rapidan, Virginia

——————————————————————————–

I am alternatively outraged and inspired by the articles and ideas expressed in Liberty. Your Obiter column "Neutral Values," however, was excellent.

One tie-in that came to mind as I read the article is the foundational statement that lies at the heart of much postmodern philosophy: "There is no such thing as absolute truth." Much like the phrase "neutral values," this statement is also self-disproving. If the statement is true, then it refutes the substantive content of the statement. If it is false, then there must be such a thing as "absolute truth."

"Neutral Values" is simply another in a long line of clever attempts to cloak anti-religious intolerance in the sheep's clothing of benign rhetoric.

This discussion reminds me of an excellent passage from the book of Romans: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. . . . Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools. . . ." Romans 1:18 and 22 (NIV).

TIMOTHY M. GIBBONS

Chattanooga, Tennessee

——————————————————————————–

This is to tell you how much I sincerely enjoy receiving and reading your magazine.

I wish to commend you on your excellent magazine. As was quoted recently in your magazine, it will benefit the world when, "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psalm 133:1).

DEAN RAY

Live Oak, Florida

——————————————————————————–

I have read your September/October 1998 issue. I was troubled by the stinging letter from Rev. Morgan of Blue Ridge, Georgia. Rev. Morgan ended his letter with a meanspirited attack on the religious tradition of the Adventist Church.

I started wondering what Rev. Morgan had in mind when he mentioned "historic Christianity" in his letter. Rev. Morgan's letter simply noted he served at "St. Luke's Church, Blue Ridge, Georgia." My curiosity got the better of me and I performed a short Internet search to learn Rev. Morgan serves in an Episcopal Church. That, in turn, made me wonder if Rev. Morgan's longing for "historical Christianity" would include the desire for a return to the state persecuting Baptists and other "dissenting congregations" on behalf of an established Episcopal church as happened in colonial America.

While most Baptists seem to have forgotten our past, some of us have not. I take no small comfort in the belief most Episcopalians would not approve of at least the tone of Rev. Morgan's epistle. You and I do not share the same religious traditions. I do, however, very much support your mission as guard against such "historical Christianity."

F. THOMAS CURRY

Arkadelphia, Arkansas

——————————————————————————–

As a long time reader of Liberty who normally finds your articles and opinions both balanced and sensible, I must take exception to the comments on page 5 of the March/April issue entitled "Saved from Faith."

I cannot wonder what your response would have been had the roles been reversed. Assume a custodial Christian mother was raising her children in her faith, while the Jewish father exposed those children to his faith which taught them that Jesus was not the Messiah, that the Messiah had not yet come, and thus that Christianity was false. What would your reaction be? Would you have criticized a Supreme Court then?

In either case we must recognize that the custodial parent has the primary responsibility of raising the children, which includes their religious education. If the non-custodial parent interferes with that responsibility, it can only be harmful to the children. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, who ruled unanimously, was correct in their finding, and Liberty erred in their critical comment that "… there are some troubling implications in a decision. . . ." I find your reaction troubling, and hope you will rethink your position.

ROBERT L. DREYFUS

Greenville, South Carolina