Attached is the work I need help with.
Danielle Lopez
Top of Form
The most reoccurring theme I seem to notice in researching the establishment clause is the argument made by those who claim that the government seems to single out people who are publicly open about their Christianity. There are countless theories of an atheistic, American government and the persecution of Christianity in our modern country. Some fear that the government is no longer using a moral compass, in which Christianity provides. Others believe that Christianity should play a hand in policy making and establishing law. I too am a Christian, but I disagree with this notion of the government having a negative bias towards Christianity.
In UNASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST: ON PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC SERVICE BY EVANGELICALS, author Johnny Buckles discusses the verbal exchange between Bernie Sanders and Russel Vought, who was nominated for the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Sanders began questioning Vought about a recent religious statement he made: Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned." (Vought, Buckles, 2018). Vought then continues to defend and explain his statement as Sanders questions his theories about other non-Christian religions. This situation is indeed complicating, but I do not agree with the way Buckles proposes Vought as a victim.
Buckles uses verbiage and tone to victimize Vought: " The Sanders-Vought exchange is especially instructive, for it demonstrates a degree of religious intolerance, and even hostility, unmatched in other Senate confirmation proceedings" (Buckles, 2018). "Hostility" is the key word. There are copious amounts of debate regarding the beliefs of public servants and government workers. Buckles is presenting the Sanders-Vought exchange as a singular occurrence, when in reality, this exchange of debate happens frequently. When the exchange is read in verbatim, Sanders is merely questioning the phrase in accordance to religions of non-Christian faith. He doesn't aim to solely attack Vought and his Christian beliefs.
Vought then calls into question the establishment clause: "The interrogation of Russell Vought by Senator Sanders likely strikes many at a visceral level as deeply offensive under constitutional norms" (Buckles, 2018). He exclaims that Sanders violates the establishment clause because he is a government employee who is questioning Vought's Christian beliefs. Buckles does indeed expand his knowledge on the constitution in accordance to this issue, showing the use of analysis, but this issue is not being examined in a full spectrum. Sanders is not intentionally inflicting harm or verbal battery on Vought, he is merely questioning Vought's morality as it relates to the others who are not Christian.
Finally, in the beginning of this essay, Buckles describes a theoretical example of someone who is Muslim and being questioned in a situation much like Sanders and Vought. This theoretical event entails a nomination of a Muslim man to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (Buckles, 2018). A letter disapproving of his nomination based on his Islamic faith is then sent to him (Buckles, 2018). Buckles then re-enters the discussion, comparing Vought, a Christian, to this theoretical, Muslim man. I completely disagree with this assertion, based on the fact that one can not compare two, completely different religions for the victimization of one. Both Christianity and Islam may be questioned by outside perspectives, but for totally different reasons. Islam has a negative connotation in this country, especially after 9/11. There is evidence of Muslims facing harsh criticisms for their faith, like hate crimes and racism. Christianity, on the other hand, is historically instilled in this country and like Vought's situation, seems to come into question when dealing with government and policy making. I am not saying that Christians do not face more negative back lash, but again, these two religions are completely different.
As previously mentioned, Buckles uses his expansion of knowledge of the constitution to support his argument. I chose this article being that it shows quality in what an opinionated piece should resemble. Of course, there are obvious disagreements between the author and I, but this is important in also establishing my beliefs in the establishment clause. The establishment clause is ambiguous, further confusing the ideals and norms of what policies are deemed just or not. It is up to mere interpretation in how the American people define the establishment clause. Because of a collective consciousness, certain ideals are more favored over others.
References:
Buckles, Johnny Rex. "UNASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST: ON PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC SERVICE BY EVANGELICALS." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Summer 2018, p. 813+. U.S. History in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A546025704/UHIC?u=vic_liberty&sid=UHIC&xid=82810967. Accessed 5 Mar. 2019. Bottom of Form
Terrence Davis
Top of Form
The subject of pre-ultrasounds prior to abortions and the implications behind such, was the bases of my research paper. In my conclusion, I wrapped up my argument in saying that the Bible is mostly silent on the topic of abortions, expect with the idea of, “thou shall not kill”, which is a very general expression, which is not a convincing argument to use in this position. In addition, one would have to look deeper into the text of the bible/or Torah to gain the meaning of what a “life” is defined as. The Hebrew Bible defines a person as nephesh, which is a person that breathes. (Ward 1993 ). And, a person that breathes is commonly accepted as someone who is born into this world.
Furthermore, the subject of anti- abortions is often back up by the Bible or other moral convictions, that people often like to use. However, many, not all, who don’t support abortions stand firmly in favor of “gay rights”, which the Bible speaks strongly against. I believe this draws on the double standards that society places within its ranks. Lastly, there are groups who actively seek to cause harm to doctors or other clinic staff at abortion clinics, yet they are prolife supporters, who like to display violence periodically.
Abortions has been around for centuries and the likelihood of abortions becoming “banned”, is possible, yet dangerous. Political leaders need to realize no one can force their moral convictions onto another group of individuals, however in the same tone, society should govern themselves with a degree of sensibilities that doesn’t shock the conscience of the public. As noted, to make a moral argument against a subject, the group that is against it, should have a moral ground to stand on. Most of the arguments against abortions, comes from a very emotional place, versus a legitimate one, that supports overall public health and safety. So, in summary, no group of people or scholarly article has any moral grounds to influence people or make people feel guilty about the choices that they make, unless it “shocks the conscience”.
Works Cited:
Roy Bowen Ward, "The Use of the Bible in the Abortion Debate," Saint Louis University Public Law Review 13, no. 1 (1993): 391-408
Bottom of Form
