Prayer in School

The Story I mention in my previous post, Oi Vey!, reminds me of a piece of art I would like to make called prayer in School.

You see, I have no problem with prayer in school. The problem does lie in the fact that the US is religiously neutral. This means that one can't favour one religion or sect over another.

So, I imagine that prayer in school would have an orthodox Jewish kid davening, a Moslem kneeling toward Mecca, a Hare Krishna, a Catholic saying the rosary, a flagellant, a Pentecostal speaking in tongues, a dervish, a snake handler, a Santeria adherent, and so forth. The ideal picture would have loads of the world's faiths practising in their own unique ways.

It would be quite a raucous and busy scene!

That's how I imagine prayer in School!

Oi vey

It seems an orthodox Jewish teenager's davening on a US Airways plane caused the plane to make an unscheduled landing in Philadelphia.

It seems the flight attendant saw the leather boxes of the kid's tefillin with what she thought were wires coming out of them and flipped out. The Captain didn't have an idea of what was going on. The crew in post 9-11 caution decided to land in Philadelphia to have the suspicious objects investigated.

The NY Daily News Article opened with the line "What schmucks".

Although, were the crew being schmucks? They see something suspicious and its their duty to look out for the safety of their passengers. Yes, a little bit of knowledge might have stopped an embarassing situation.

But the US is a Christian nation.

233 Years of Mistakes--It's time to return to England!

I've always thought if we could transport the founding fathers forward in time their reaction would be "fuck it, we're better off as a part of Britain" and just go back home.

If they had any doubts, I could take them to this quaint village that Mudflap Bubbas Found! I'm sure that would persuade them of the error of their ways far more effectively than a nuclear strike on Lexington and Concord ever would.

Why, because most of them would be appalled at how the US has turned out. The fact that the Constitution has been perverted so that something like the Second Amendment which was to ensure a Swiss style military has become a farce with the out of control military and people yammering about gun rights. Add in the fools who say this country was founded as a Christian nation.

Somebody should tell these people about Congregation Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia. Does Haym Solomon sound very Christian to you??? He was a prime financier of the American side during the American Revolutionary War. Jews have been in the US since the mid-17th Century with Jews playing a key role in the Revolution.

How would they feel to learn that Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli (nevermind he converted to Christianity, there's always hope), whereas it was a tough road to get a Catholic as US President! Would the Jewish "patriots" change their support to England if they saw people who say this country is a Christian nation?

We could get into the reaction to Shays' Rebellion and how "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power". The problem is that by making a break from Britain in the way they did, they created a very bad precedent. Even though the Constitution was written to clarify the situation, there are still some who believe in the insurrection theory despite its not having a constitutional basis.

Break from England, it's a very bad idea!

We can get into the misunderstanding of history presented by the "tea party" crowd. Whatever the fuck it is that they believe. I know it doesn't have anything to do with clotted cream and scones.

An even more interesting point is that the American rebels saw themselves as British and were demanding that they be properly treated as British Citizens. They wanted a voice in the taxation policies. The cry wasn't "No taxation", but "No Taxation without Representation". The phrase captures a sentiment central to the cause of the English Civil War, as articulated by John Hampden who said “what an English King has no right to demand, an English subject has a right to refuse” in the Ship money case. The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. The Colonials felt that they were deprived of this right since they had no direct representation in the British Parliament.

When people who frame themselves as patriots knock Britain, they should remember that the founders considered themselves to be British Subjects. The question would be would the founders if they were alive today feel more at home in the United States or in the United Kingdom?

I think they would be much more inclined toward England than Washington: and definitely frightened by some places in the hinterlands of the US. I've heard it said that the "patriots/rebels" had the better slogans, but the tories had much stronger arguments for remaining with Britain. Time has proven that the Tories were correct and that rebellion was a foolish choice.

England v. the US

OK, my post here is about religious establishment: a major point in my blogs. England has a state religion, the Anglican Church (and Scotland has the Church of Scotland).

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches. That means that the US is a Secular State. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion.

The US Constitutional provisions providing for a Secular State are pretty clear cut as I point out in my post: Why do yanks forget this one when they talk about religious establishment???. A State religion is forbidden explicitly under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as implicitly in Article VI of the same document.

Another point, why bother breaking from Britain if the US wanted to remain a "Christian Nation"? I mean the UK has its state religion. Wouldn't that system work well for the Colonies?

The problem is that there are fringe loonies who want to turn the US into a Christian nation despite what the Constitution says.

On the other hand, the UK has a State relgion and will push it down your throat at pretty much at every opportunity (says he who is enjoying Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity). And even though I tend to ignore most things religious, I notice that there is an attempt at understanding between Britains Christians and other religions in the UK. For example, Philip Leacock's film Hand in Hand about a Christian boy and a little Jewish girl who become friends despite the prejudice that surrounds them sticks in my mind from when I was a kid.

Currently, Britain is trying to understand its Muslim citizens and make sure they don't feel marginalised. That may be something which is easier said than done. However, what brought this post about from simmering in my brain was that Kurbaan's song Shukraan Allah (Thank you, Allah/God) just made number 1 in the BBC Asian Network Charts! Yeah, that's not Number 1 in the National Charts, but its a start.

One thing that Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity pointed out was that Islam and Christianity (and I would add in Judaism) have quite a bit of similarities. The US, as a Secular Society should would on appreciating the religions other than protestant Christianity that are practised by its citizens.

Otherwise, why should it have bothered to have broken from England?

Why do yanks forget this one when they talk about religious establishment???

Article Six of the United States Constitution:

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Why is this in the Constitution if this is a Christian nation?

Also, why is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

in the the Constitution as well if this is a Christian nation?

I think that is pretty clear that the US is supposed to be religiously neutral. How can there be people like these?

The US is supposed to be secular. Got that?

The New Model Army?

The New Model Army of Great Britain was formed in 1645 by Oliver Cromwell's Parliamentarians in the English Civil War, and disbanded in 1660 after the Restoration. It was raised partly from among veteran soldiers who already had deeply-held Puritan religious convictions, and partly from conscripts who brought with them many commonly-held beliefs about religion or society.

I am amazed that there are organisations that try to convert those serving in the US Military to Christian Fundamentalism to make it a New Model Army.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has a history of religious freedom in the US military. Not to mention I've blogged that The First Amendment and Article VI of the Constitution provide for religious freedom.

Mikey Weinstein, a retired officer and activist for religious freedom in the military, published this communication from the wife of an American Muslim serving in the military:

…I wanted to let you know what life has been like for myself, being an American-Muslim military spouse, over the last few days here at (military installation withheld), since the Ft. Hood incident. When I first learned of this, I was sitting in the PX food court with my best friend whose immediate reaction was, “ No offense to you, but Muslims shouldn’t even be allowed in the U.S. Army”. Wow, this was from my best friend here! I have heard this and similar sentiments repeatedly from various “friends”, as well as people insisting it’s really a terror plot.

Since this happening, my Muslim husband, who is deployed to Afghanistan, has been put on duty to build a chapel on his base, as well as being told not to associate with the Afghan nationals that work there. I went shopping at the commissary and had people mumbling under their breath but loud enough to ensure that I could hear, things like, “get out of our country”, “go back to your country”, “ F-ing Muslims”, “G-Damn Muslims,” and several other expletives you can insert there. Now people don’t just stare at you when they see you go by wearing hijab, they glare. Last time I checked, I was born in this country, this is my country, and my husband is serving it and continues to serve it despite the harassment and racism he encounters. He proudly serves despite the fact that our family pays a higher price for it than many others.

I know that The United Kingdon has a state sanctioned Church, but how can the US condone intlerance in its military? And despite the state religion, The United Kingdom has worked to encourage diversity and understanding in recent years.

The first recorded Englishman to become a Muslim was John Nelson, who converted to Islam at some point in the 16th Century. In the 18th and 19th Centuries there were a number of converts to Islam amongst the English upper classes, including Edward Montagu, son of the ambassador to Turkey.

The first large group of Muslims in Britain arrived about 300 years ago. They were sailors recruited in India to work for the East India Company, and so it's not surprising that the first Muslim communities were found in port towns. Islam was not recognised until the Trinitarian Act in 1812, though Muslims were present prior to this. Today Islam is the second largest religion in the UK with recent estimates suggesting a Muslim population as high as 2.4 million, in part due to considerable immigration to the UK from its former colonies.

My question is why is the US so far behind the UK in recognising Islam? This is especially true considering the Treat of Tripoli I mentioned in my previous post.

I can take some guesses as to why the US demonises Islam, but none of those reasons would be valid ones for such an action.

Religious freedom takes on an additional importance in the current international environment, where religious motivations are an increasing rationale for waging conflict. At a time when the United States is encouraging greater freedom in Muslim nations, it is imperative upon America to show by example that religious pluralism is a viable and preferred option. Any sign of hypocrisy in United States policy, official or otherwise, toward the free exercise of religion within the military makes it more difficult to convince others to follow its example.