Not a Graduation Speech

It’s that time of year.  I recently attended my niece’s high school graduation ceremony.  Pomp and Circumstance and all that.  We were treated to no fewer than five commencement speeches by assorted valedictorians.  Okay, let them have their moment, a reward for hard work and dedication.

Something I found particularly noteworthy about these particular speeches was the content, a common theme.  Three of the speakers opted to speak at length about their religious faith, how they knew that God carried them through the hard times and all that.  Now, this was a public school, but I can’t say I found it especially surprising.  This school was in a relatively small town with a strongly church-going population, enough that there was a policy for the teachers to never assign homework on Wednesdays, because that was church youth group night.

Now I have no doubt some of you are bothered.  I know people who would be livid by this point, screaming about a grotesque violation of the separation of church and state.  Regardless of the fact that I am not a believer and I don’t much care for proselytizing, I cannot agree.  This is not a violation.

First let’s be clear: the Constitution is very specific in what limits are placed regarding church and state.  “Congress shall make no law,” it says, “respecting the establishment of religion, nor abridging the free exercise thereof.”  The first important point here is that the limitation is placed on legislation.  But no laws are created when a high school speaker invokes the name of Jesus.  Nor is it a violation when schools don’t assign homework so the students can attend church.  For one thing, the students aren’t actually being required to attend the youth group.  For the kids who don’t, it’s a night off.

But, say my acquaintances, it’s still the church exerting influence on the state, in this case the state instrument that is public education.  It is equally bad, they insist, if a teacher places a Bible on his desk in front of the students.  This is tantamount to compelling them to adopt his religious beliefs, thus violating the establishment clause.  Really?  Speaking as a former high school teacher, let me tell you how hard it is to compel the students to do anything.

Even more ludicrous is the idea that the students would be indoctrinated, that their minds will be filled with religion at the mere sight of the Bible.  Well gee, I’m pretty sure there’s also a math book on the desk; if showing the students a book is all it takes to fill their minds, shouldn’t they all be acing those standardized tests?  Face it, putting a Bible on the desk is not forcing religion on anyone.

But what about those commencement speakers?  They stood up and delivered religious messages in front of people who may not share those beliefs.  Yeah, so?  So, it’s an attack on those with differing beliefs.  Those people should not have to hear messages they don’t believe in.  Okay, I’ve already addressed this little bit of myopia.  But I’m intrigued in this case by how selective the objection is.

The argument goes, a student who says she succeeded by relying on her Christian faith is demeaning those who aren’t Christian.  What if she says she succeeded by working hard?  Isn’t she demeaning those who didn’t work hard?  One speaker talked about the life lessons he learned from playing sports; isn’t he demeaning all the non-athletes?  It’s strange how people limit their outrage to religion

Perhaps this is in part because, according to some perspectives, Christians are called upon to share the word.  Well, if you really believe in something, you are likely to want to share it with others.  We do that when we discover a great restaurant, or a a cool new band.  But we don’t take that as offensive; we say thanks, I’ll check it out.  And we may well have no intention of doing so.  I hate sushi, but if you tell me I should check out this great sushi restaurant, I won’t take offense.  I understand that you think you are doing me a favor.

So why do people take such offense when others come to the door and try to share the “good news” of Jesus?  Because, goes the answer, it’s arrogant; they assume they have the only “truth.”  Fair enough, but bear in mind that the truth they believe they have is the difference between salvation and damnation, and they are trying to save you.  Let’s try an analogy:  Suppose you see someone’s house on fire.  Further, you see him sitting inside, calmly watching TV.  Obviously he doesn’t know his house is burning.  So you go rushing up, bang on the door and say, “You’re going to die if you don’t get out!” 

Suppose you are the person in the house.  You have a poor sense of smell and can’t smell the smoke, so as far as you know, your house isn’t on fire.  Are you going to get mad and accuse the guy of trying to change your beliefs, since he believes your house is on fire?  Of course not; you’re going to check it out.  And even if he’s wrong, you won’t get offended that he thought he was saving your life.  And consider this: would you prefer he stay outside and not try to save you, because he doesn’t want to disrespect your beliefs?

No doubt you are calling this a ludicrous analogy.  Perhaps.  But to a believer, your soul is very much in peril, and he feels as obligated to save it from hell as he would to save your body from a house fire.  You may disagree with that belief (I do), but understand that it was well intentioned.  Nobody goes marching from door to door with pamphlets out of a sense of smugness.  Nobody.

Why am I bringing this up?  Because I feel rather like the proselytizer.  Having something to say that people don’t want to hear.  I must be very careful.  Religious people are filled with the spirit and spread the word and, while some may deride them as religious nuts, mostly they are accepted.  Vegetarians talk at length about the benefits of vegetarianism.  People go on and on about gay rights.  Or animal cruelty.  Or agrochemicals.  Or government spying.  Or whatever other thing they are interested in.  Some people, it’s all they can talk about.  At worst we call those people bores.  But, again, we tolerate them, because we have this thing called free speech.

But I talk about nudity and sexuality.  Notice that I must now rush to say I talk about other things as well.  This is not a website devoted exclusively to those things.  Even so, people are probably saying, are you going there again?  Dude, what’s wrong with you?  You are freakin’ obsessed with nudity and sex.  That’s a little creepy.  And you’re a teacher?  Eww! 

Got that?  I’m “obsessed” with nudity and sexuality because I talk about them quite a bit.  But there are people with websites devoted to vegetarianism, to Christianity, to parenting, to bicycling, to quilting, to old records, to science fiction, to… well, you name it.  But we don’t call those people obsessed.  They’re “passionate.”  And that’s okay.  We certainly don’t think there’s something wrong with them.  Nope, that’s reserved for people like me.

Well, so be it.  There’s more to come on this.  Read or not.  That’s up to you.  Stay tuned.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Contribute to the Story

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s