Letter to KISD Regarding Bible Verses on Run-through Banners

Remember the Kountze Bible verse banner controversy from last year?  A few weeks ago KISD held a public forum to discuss the issue.  My friend, Lindsey, delivered an awesome statement at the meeting, and the school board decided to continue to let the public voice their opinions and concerns through letters.  Here is mine:

____________________________________________

KISD School Board:

Thank you for giving the public an opportunity to submit comments regarding the current controversy with the cheerleader Bible verse banners.   I live in Hardin County, and after seeing these banners on our local television station, I started an informal group called “Concerned East Texans for Separation of Church and State,” to support KISD, discuss legal matters regarding the establishment clause, and raise awareness of church/state issues throughout East Texas.  Currently the group has over 250 members, either from East Texas or with close ties to the area.  Members come from different religious backgrounds, including Christians, Muslims, Pagans, and non-religious freethinkers, but we all share an appreciation for government neutrality in religious matters.


The Establishment Clause to the First Amendment of the US Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .

This is immediately followed by the free Exercise clause,

“…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In the case of the football banners, the cheerleaders have emphasized the Free Exercise clause, while Kevin Weldon and the school’s legal team have emphasized the Establishment Clause.  In this letter, I wish to argue both that prohibiting the banners does NOT violate the Free Exercise clause, and that  continued use of Scriptural banners DOES violate the Establishment.

First, prohibiting the banners does not violate the cheerleaders’ right to individually exercise their religious rights.  These girls can still pray individually, wear t-shirts or necklaces, tell their friends about their religious convictions, and form independent clubs that focus on their religion.  Nobody, including KISD has told the girls that it is wrong to be a Christian.   Last week, a spokesperson for the school issued a statement saying,

“The Board of Trustees is concerned that certain actions by former Superintendent Kevin Weldon, though done in good faith, may have inadvertently given the appearance of hostility to religion or of preference for irreligion over religion.”

I am confused how the school’s actions can be interpreted in this way.  There is a proper time and  place for everything, and a school, its teachers, and its leaders are guided with the task of deciding when a behavior is appropriate and when something disrupts the learning environment or the harmony of a school.  A banner reading “God is dead,” or “Allahu Akbar” would cause harmonious and legal problems for the school, just as much as a Christian banner.  I’m sure the KISD school board and legal team would have taken similar actions if such signs were being displayed.  This is why I’m confused as to how the school’s actions can be interpreted as being “hostile to religion.”  Asking the girls to make their banners relevant to football is not taking away their rights to religious practice; rather, it is asking them to stay on task. 

Many Christians believe that it is their religious duty to share the gospel, to tell others “the good news of Christ,” and to let their light shine, so that others will praise their Father in Heaven.  These things are important to many Christian students in Kountze, and I have no doubt that this was the intention of the cheerleaders.  However, if a child decides to stand on his desk during math class and start sharing his personal testimony, that student would be asked to sit down and listen to the lesson on quadratic equations.  He would NOT  be in trouble for being a Christian.  His Christian faith would NOT  be “attacked;” rather, the teacher would ask that he talk to his classmates about his faith after class.  Learning occurs in a classroom, and football occurs on a football field. 

Like the zealous math student in this example, the cheerleaders have chosen an inappropriate setting for their religious expression.  Religious signs on the football field can disrupt the harmony of the student body by causing unnecessary divisions among the students.  Those who are not Christian will feel out of place because the signs do not represent their religious holy books or personal convictions.  Even those who are Christian may feel offended because, following a certain interpretation of Matthew 6:5, they believe religion should be expressed privately, or because they find it sacrilegious to watch the words of their holy scriptures torn asunder, as the football players rush through them before the game.  As I have already stated, children are free to exercise their religion however they please, but they are not free to interrupt the learning process, disrupt the harmony of the school, or break the law while making the school vulnerable to a lawsuit.   It is the duty of the school to intervene when such instances occur.

This brings me to my second point, allowing these banners on the football field is, indeed, a violation of the establishment clause, as demonstrated by recent decisions from the Supreme Court. 

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a case involving a Silsbee cheerleader because (and I quote) "a cheerleader is a mouthpiece for the school." It doesn't matter if the majority of students agree with the message of the sign or even if ALL the students agree with the sign's religious message. These messages are displayed by representatives of the school, while in uniform, and acting as the mouthpiece of the school.  In Santa Fe ISD v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that a student's expression of religion (prayer), over the loudspeaker before a football game, would give an outsider the impression that the school supports a particular religion. These prayers were then ruled unconstitutional. Public schools are supposed to be religiously neutral spaces, and cannot even give the APPEARANCE of endorsing a religion. These signs, held by the school's mouthpieces, would certainly give outsiders the impression that KISD supports Christianity over other religions, whose holy books are not represented on the football field. Therefore, just as in Santa Fe v. Doe, this particular form of religious expression is unconstitutional.

If you choose to continue fighting against this lawsuit, as I and many others believe you should, the Supreme Court will rule in your favor.  If you choose to settle and allow the cheerleaders to continue to hold their religious banners, a lawsuit may come up in the future in which you will be on the losing side. 


Kacy Ellis, of Silsbee, TX
Founder of East Texans Concerned for Separation of Church and State

I Was Born in 1985

I was born in 1985.  I was in the 8th grade during the Columbine shooting, and that was perhaps my first realization that the world was not as secure as I imagined it as a child.  I was a junior in high school when the World Trade Center collapsed, and I bought into the subsequent war-hawk rhetoric in time to participate in my first presidential election in 2004.  I was a senior in college during the Virginia Tech shootings, and I cried in my dorm room, in disbelief that my peers were, once again, murdered by a fellow classmate. 

I graduated at the beginning of the recession and have continually read about my generation's lack of job opportunities, our student debt crises, and the negative impact this will have on the rest of our lives.  I watched bankers receive a huge bailout for speculating with other peoples' money, while my friends struggled under the weight of medical bills and student debt, hoping that the next unpaid internship may FINALLY lead to employment in their field. 

I was nursing my second born child when I read about the elementary school shooting in Newtown.  In the months that followed I heard many calling the masses to take up arms--the more guns, the better!  When will we learn that violence begets more violence?  Gun violence, the violence of war, and the violence of a speculative economy harming an entire generation--I grew up watching my generation suffer as victims of lies and violence. 

I was brought up in a conservative family, but I became a liberal shortly after having children of my own.  Something has to change to end this cycle of violence. 

I don't want my children to
Mark their passing years
With news reports of
Their suffering peers.

Finding Balance

I'm stepping away from this blog for a while because I'm having difficulty balancing all the things I want to do during my limited free time.  Writing is a very solitary activity, and I have limited time to myself as it is.  For the moment I'd rather knit, read classic literature, or work on my art journal.  There are only so many days in a life, and so many hours in a day.  And of those limited hours, I only have two to myself.  One of which is devoted to exercise and hygiene.  Now that Theo has given up his afternoon nap, I no longer have the space for my afternoon blog.  This blog will still be here, and if I need to reflect more on my Christian upbringing and life as an atheist, I'll return to it.  But for the moment, I'd simply rather do other things.  Adieu!

Why I Mock Christian Dogma -- Especially Pre-Trib Eschatology

For the most part, I try to remain respectful when discussing Christian doctrine, and I especially make it a point to be kind to others, regardless of religious beliefs, assuming reciprocation.  At the same time, I have poked fun of various Christian beliefs and practices on this blog, and other places on the internet.  Heck, I've even participated in such mockery in "real" life. 

Lately, I've noticed a trend regarding the doctrines I mock off-screen.  In general, I don't bother with sentimental platitudes about Jesus, or the virgin birth, or transubstantiation.  Instead I direct my smart-assery towards the doctrines that flooded my life with fear as a Christian--Hell and end times eschatology. 

I've touched on my fear of Hell before, but I haven't discussed the fear I had about the end times.  I'm sure many of my readers will remember the hype and fervor surrounding the Left Behind series during the 90s and early 2000s.  I was in junior high when the first book was published, and my mother slowly began collecting the series, purchasing the books in hardcover, often during the first sales week. 

At the time I didn't know good literature from trash, but I had complete access to my parents' library.  I knew that the Left Behind series was popular among many people at my church and with a lot of "good Christians."  I wanted to be a good Christian, myself, and I looked to others in my community as roll models in this area.  I copied them by talking politely, learning Scripture, and reading the recommended reading material. 

I devoured each book as it came out, up until I started questioning my faith in high school.  I found a frightening world in which Christians were forced to take the "Mark of the Beast" or die, a one world government seeking to control humanity, and people dying in the streets fighting for Jesus.  Those who had been ruptured were spared the fate of living in such a world, but those who remained were in a constant spiritual and physical battle for their lives and souls.  I knew I didn't want to be left behind, and since I had doubts about the sincerity of my salvation, rapture eschatology provided another source of anxiety in my childhood.


I rode the bus home from school, talking with friends or reading a book during the ride, but my family lived in a suburban cul-da-sac where the bus lacked maneuverability.  Each day, I got off the bus at the end of my street, and passed four houses on my walk home.  The walk, itself, was pretty short, but I always worried what I would find when I got home.  Would my mother's clothes be in a pile on the floor with dinner burning on the stove?  Would I have to live in a post-rapture apocalyptic nightmare without adult guidance in my life or the company of my little sister?  Sometimes these thoughts made me sick to my stomach. 

Later I learned to distract myself during the walk by listening to Christian music on my portable CD player.  But, even this couldn't protect me from my fears, as songs like this took on my very nightmares as their theme.  (If you want to understand the sort of fear I'm describing, just watch the video in the previous link, and try to filter these images through the mind of a fourteen year old.)  These fears slowly faded but remained present until I discovered the Calvinist tradtion. 

There is much I now dislike about Calvinism, but I am grateful for discovering it when I did because it provided an alternative way to think about eschatology.  Most Calvinists, at least the Presbyterian sort, are amillinialists, meaning they believe that the events referred to in Revelation were discussing the fall of Rome, an event that had already occurred.  There would be no rapture or post-apocalyptic nightmare world.

I even found a book called Right Behind by N.D. Wilson (son of Doug Wilson), which makes fun of the Left Behind fervor and nonsense.  This book provided a "safe" (read: Christian) source to mock a fear that once paralyzed me.  And this is why I mock rapture theology today.  By mocking it, I am showing the world and myself that I have conquered these fears--that I will no longer be held down by childhood fears stemming from Christian indoctrination.  I also seek to tame these fears for others, which means I mock some Christian doctrines in front of my children.  There are plenty of people in my life and theirs that still believe in the pre-tribulation rapture, and children have vivid imaginations.  I do not want these fears to cloud my children's childhood the way they did mine, so I de-fang this nonsense whenever I can.




* Image Credit

Christians and Capitalism: Witnessing a Marriage

I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine: he feedeth among the lilies. (Song of Solomon 6:3, KJV)

Judging from my Facebook newsfeed, it is quite clear that Christians love capitalism.  Just in case you missed it, conservative Christians lined up on Saturday to purchase craft supplies at Hobby Lobby to show the world that they appreciate the corporation's refusal to give their employees full access to healthcare coverage.  From this perspective, Hobby Lobby exemplifies Christian principles par excellence.  For they are sacrificing the almighty dollar to stand up for "religious freedom."  

This weekend we were all witnesses of a marriage--the union between Christianity and Capitalism.  Although the two have courted since the days of the puritans, finding commonality in the Protestant Work Ethic, they have only recently consummated the marriage.  Perhaps the initial consummation took place in July when we witnessed a similar act between Christianity and Chickfila.  Nevertheless, the intercourse that took place at Hobby Lobby on Saturday demonstrates the firm commitments of both marriage parties. 

As many Christians argue, a marriage should be fruitful and open to life.  The marriage between Christianity and Capitalism has resulted in NEW LIFE--a new religion has entered American culture.  This religion has its sacraments--buying goods from "Christian businesses"--and saints, such as Dan Cathy and David Green.  It has its own hagiography and stories of martyrdom.

Prayers echo from the pages of social networking sites, calling faithful into participation with the communion of saints.

AMEN!!

God, the Third Wheel

My friend Lana asks, "Why does theology effect how we relate to each other?"  Between my experiences as a Christian and now as an atheist, my thoughts head in two directions on this question.  First, I believe there will always be an inherently selfish component to Christianity.  And second, one's perceptions of God operate as a sort of third wheel in relationships.

This is how I responded to Lana's thought-provoking question:

I think theology matters in how one views people because there is a selfish element to any orthodox theological position. The focus on heaven and the afterlife is, itself selfish. This comes into play in one’s relationship with others in multiple ways. In Catholicism, for example, works of mercy are an important part of the salvation process. Helping someone out, isn’t done out of a pure love for humanity or the well-being of the other person, but it is done, at least in part, to gain eternal rewards by bringing oneself closer to God. In evangelical branches of Christianity, witnessing to the “lost,” through word or deed, can also be selfish in that a person is doing so to gain kudos with God and the Christian tribe. They can never love the unbeliever for who he or she is, but instead try to change them.

One of the reasons I left religion is because I realized I loved my own children more than I loved God. I knew that if someone threatened to kill my children unless I denied God, that I would deny God in a heartbeat and never feel bad about that decision. It was then I realized that PEOPLE were more important than personal beliefs about God and that I didn’t want to belong to any religion that said God had to be number 1 (pretty much all of them). I had a similar experience to the way I related to my husband in our marriage. There was always God, the third wheel, and I was told that keeping God close would enhance our marriage. It really didn’t. In fact, I realized I could be more open and honest with my husband when I didn’t feel the need to temper my speech through Christian-ese. Leaving Christianity has freed my heart, to love others, without the mediation God as a third wheel in human relationships.

-----------------------------------------------------

I encourage y'all to check out some of the other responses. 

Crotchety Mr. Gruff, The Atheist--He thinks he has it all figured out

First, a little hat-tip to the ever-loveable, ex-priest, Edward Tarte, for posting this photo on his Facebook wall.  I don't normally write entries about comment trolls and e-mails that insult me for my atheism or question my sincerity.  Most people who visit my blog and comment  are wonderful and respectful people.

I've also seen blogs turn into petty back and forth bickering about who said what and why certain comments sounded rude in tone, etc. etc.  Such blog posts are boring and time-consuming.  I've been guilty of such back-and-forth in the past, with Baptist apologist James White, and I simply don't want to make this a regular habit.

At the same time, I've received multiple comments on the blog and in e-mail form, telling me that I think  know everything now that I'm an atheist.  Instead of dignifying any one particular comment with a direct quote, I'll borrow the sentiment expressed on this goofy atheist flier:

"Atheists such as crotchety old Mr. Gruff think they've got it all figured out"

There seems to be a misconception that all atheists are little know-it-alls.  They think they have all the answers and will confidently assert their beliefs and opinions while ignoring the views of others.   There is a clear anti-atheist bias here, and I argue that it is not me, the atheist, who claims to have it all figured out.  Rather, certain Theists want to think they have atheists figured out and/or wish to see "faith" as the default position, rather than skepticism.  I've seen this bias manifest itself  in presuppositional apologetics on the Protestant side and Anselmian "faith seeking understanding" on the Catholic side.  Both lead to the idea that faith is the only accepted starting point for knowledge and conclude that the atheist is flawed on a fundamental level.

The Presuppositionalist apologist will psychologize the atheist, claiming that a person doesn't believe in God because he or she doesn't want to be held accountable for their actions.  They will use Romans 1:18-20 to justify such a claim:

 ¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. ¹⁹ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; (NRSV)

In other words, the Bible says that God has revealed himself to everyone in the natural world.  Those who say that there is no evidence to support the existance of God or do not believe in God are simply surpressing their knowledge of the truth.    As R.C. Sproul declares to atheists:

Your problem with the existence of God is not intellectual.  It's not because there is insufficient information.  It's not because God's manifestation of himself has been obscured.  Your problem is not intellectual, it's moral.  Your problem is not that you can't know God.  Your problem is that you don't want God. (11:42)

The presuppositional apologist simply refuses to trust a skeptic, or believe her claims.  "She just thinks she knows everything, but really she just doesn't want to acknowledge her sin before a holy and righteous God."  The atheist thinks they have it all figured because they do not want to acknowledge God.

The experience of becoming an atheist, at least in my own life, was and is actually quite different.  I followed the teachings of the Catholic Church, whether I liked them or not.  In many ways, I'm the stereotypical goody-goody.  Little has changed in my life since I stopped believing in God.  I never sought to become an atheist, and even when I had reached that conclusion, I had difficulty letting go of the comfortable idea of an afterlife.  I wanted to believe because Christian faith is a comfortable way to view the world, and it can provide quick answers.  Now that I'm an atheist, I no longer have a catechism or a creed to look at for guidance.  Far from believing I have everything figured out, I'm starting at square-1 and trying to put together the pieces of what I believe.  I use this blog to work out these thoughts.

While presuppositional apologetics are not as popular for Catholics as they are for Protestants, Catholics do believe that faith should be the default position for gaining knowledge and understanding the world.  Anselm expressed this as "Fides quaerens intellectum," or "faith seeking understanding."    The idea of "faith seeking understanding" is closely connected to Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God--an argument I find unconvincing for the simple reason that my ability to imagine the existence of something doesn't mean that it necessarily, does in fact, exist. 

As a Catholic, I was told that it was okay to have doubts, but to always search for answers within the context of the faith.  To deviate form the path of faith was to submit myself to spiritual blindness.  Theism, and Christianity more specifically, should be the default starting position of any rational and moral person, not atheism, so I used to believe.  My nagging doubts never went away, and here I am as uncertain as ever.  The difference is that now I view atheism as the natural default position.  I'm open to evidence regarding the existence of God, but so far I've found the arguments against the existence of God more convincing than the arguments for the existence of God.  Yet again, I do not think I have all the answers, I've simply switched my default-frame of thinking as I discover more about the world