Thursday, July 6, 2006
There's a disturbing story circulating that makes me grateful that the label of "conservative" has become the "big tent" it has in recent years, because I'm sure I'm not adopting the stereotypical "conservative" line on this one. I actually agree with the ACLU. If they stayed with issues like this (assuming the facts are as they appear), and away from the marginal cases (that keep pushing the margins) like microscopic crosses on state seals and Constitutional civil rights for foreign head-choppers, some of us might not be so hostile. Well, broken clocks and all...
Bartholomew has the story's background, here, about the Delaware public school that seems to have been a Christian school rather than a school populated by Christians and the harrassing out of town of the ACLU plaintiffs in the case. I don't think every last vestige of religion needs to be banished from campus, but this school does sound like it was more than a bit over the line. Judith examines the issue, along with the internet's role in the whole mess, here.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: On the side of the ACLU.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/6499
Well, to be clear, this is a public school largely populated by Christians, not a private "Christian school".
There are different emotions and cross currents here, for example some reactions against the California school system which has promoted aspects of Islam under the guise of multiculturalism. There are also some highly and apparently heatedly contested facts (e.g., the "Christ killer" charge and probably several other charges and counter-charges as well). Still - if the situation is in fact as represented - then, imo more serious and more thoughtful Christians should be taking the side of the ACLU's (ugh, is that a dirk in my heart?!?!) plaintiffs, and aggressively so. (And if pastor Fike's prayer is as represented, it's particularly repulsive in that public school context.)
The separation of church and state can certainly be an overly leveraged principle, and it is a basic and guiding principle, one not written into the constitution as such and one which needs to be weighed in the balance with other, contrasting and opposing principles, not as an absolute, ideological trump card. (Refraining from an establishment of religion is pointedly not co-equivalent or synonymous with the ideological uses the separation principle has been put to, by the ACLU and others.)
Too, some of the facts might well be called into question, this situation is ripe for a too high heat-to-light ratio on both sides of the equation. Further, all this is taking place not simply within a Christian vs. non-Christian general framework, but within a positive and assertive multi-culti framework as well, hence the note concerning the Islamic "indoctrination" occurring in a different part of the country.
Still, if the facts are substantially as represented, have to side with the ACLU's plaintiffs, and decidedly and resolutely and absolutely so.
(As I was recently labeled an "anti-Semite" for bringing up the fact that many of the highly and critically placed bolsheviks who helped to form Stalin's regime, including his inner circle, were ethnic Jews, albeit of a decidedly ideologically committed and secular/atheist kind, I have some counter-sensitivities here and can't help but question things like the "Christ killer" charge, as one of the allegations in this case. It may in fact be true, but it has a false, anachronistic ring to it. Also, to be at least a bit more clear, the ideologically committed, secular/atheist Jews who helped form the bolshevik revolution and additionally helped to forward some of Stalin's worst excesses were brought up in roughly the manner advanced by Yuri Slezkine in The Jewish Century, as reviewed here by David Myers, UCLA professor of Jewish history, and also by Steve Sailer in one of the Amazon reviews. That's a much larger and more encompassing topic, but it is broadly germane in and of itself across that larger, ideological and social/political arc.)
more than a bit over the line
This is clearly way over the line--why the cautiousness in condemning it? And as a conservative, i think that a blog like this would have a particularly strong voice condemning the conservtives like the "Stop the ACLU Coalition," which reportedly publicized the family's number and address. Where is the outrage? Just as we call on Muslims to criticize Muslim extremiis, conservatives need to condemn conservative extremism. Forcefully.
Call it a measure of hesitation based on the fact that all the facts may not be present and there may be more to the story of what's happening at the school. I read one or two posts on the subject and put up this entry -- not really enough to build my outrage. I detest posing. When I express true outrage I like for it to be as honest as possible -- that means I have to at least feel I've got a very good handle on the situation and really feel the outrage I'm expressing. That doesn't happen all that often, and usually only on issues I follow regularly.
As far as the posting of personal information and that whole issue, I was mostly leaving it to other bloggers to hit that. I can say that posting the personal info of the family in a situation where it's predictable that they're being held out for abuse is absolutely unacceptable. Absolutely.