As I Have Said Before, There Will Always Be Prayer in Schools

Most people understand that. Some, even if they understand it, seem nevertheless to feel obliged to use it as a weapon for political gain. Few things in the world are more terrifying to a member of the Religious Right than an atheist, which is what makes attacks on the "attack on Christianity" a viable weapon.

Take Missouri, for example. Missouri has proposed an amendment explaining that children have the right to pray and read their Bibles. This despite the fact that there is already an amendment that does this - the First one.

I actually like the take on this that Brian Kaylor gives:
Those who self-righteously proclaim they are standing up for prayer seem to have forgotten the teachings of Jesus. As Jesus explained in his "Sermon on the Mount," we should pray in secret in our closet and not publicly like hypocrites so that all can see us.
What I like about this is that he not only understands that there is a Separation, but he actually can use the teachings of his belief to support his position and to show that Church and State can co-exist independent of each other.

It's not just a Christian nation

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the People have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." - James Madison

I see this as something that makes perfect sense. I don't want any one Church telling my government how it should be run to the exclusion of all others any more than I want the Government telling me how and to whom I should pray and worship. But I'm not a part of any consensus.

Instead, what we get are Governors declaring "Christian Heritage Week." Because all those Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, and Wiccan students all need to know how Christianity shaped America. And, as Governor Gregoire puts it: "our Goal is to bring the awareness to adults and students throughout Washington that our nation is irrefutably rooted in biblical principles."

Bull. This nation is not a theocracy. Nowhere in the Constitution does the word God or Christ appeaer. While Christianity certainly made its presence known in the time of the foundation, the country was founded as a secular nation - hence the First Amendment, and Jefferson's letter to the Baptists (which, despite the Falwell apologists, DID intend to interpret the First Amendment), and the quote by Madison above.

This was a stupid thing to do, completely unnecessary.

Semantics

One of the Ten Commandments in every version of the Ten Commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness."

I grew up understanding this to mean, roughly, "Thou Shalt Not Lie," which I'm sure many people grew up understanding this to mean.

Today, while studying for national security law, my friend and I took a break and had a discussion on what exactly this means. It seems that "Thou Shalt Not Lie" is a little too simplistic. If nothing else, the bible itself demonstrates that Lying is not something absolutely condemned by God.

If one reads the story of Rahab, a harlot in Jericho, you will find that she lied to the Gentiles to protect the jewish spies who took refuge in her home. She told the Gentiles who were searching for the jews that 1. two men came to her house, but she did not know if they were jewish. This may or may not be the truth, historically. The version I read is mum on the spies identifying themselves as Jews, though they did say that God would save her house. The second line, though, when she said that the men had left and went off in some direction, urging the mob by saying they were moving slowly, and the Gentiles could catch them. This was certainly a lie, as she had hid the two men in her roof.

As retribution for the harlot lying, God spared her house when the walls of Jericho came a'tumblin' down.

So the question I have, essentially, is, what does it mean to not bear false witness, if it doesn't mean "Don't lie?" Or, is this an ethically fuzzy subject, where, as so many people approach it, it's sometimes necessary or excuseable to lie? In the case of Rahab, she lied in the name of God - is that justifiable? Can you expand that to other deific theories, such as Allah?

I'd like to hear your input. I'm going to keep studying, and probably won't consider this again until Saturday afternoon, or so.