Written by Don Byrd
A key feature of America’s tradition of religious freedom is the idea that government should neither advance nor inhibit religion. As BJC Executive Director Brent Walker said recently in a speech at Baylor University, “government must be neutral toward religion, turning it loose to flourish or flounder on its own.”
That is not, apparently, the view of one Bill O’Reilly, the host, I’m told, of a program on Fox News, and author of a new book about the life of Jesus. In an interview with Matt Lauer promoting the book, O’Reilly explained why he thinks public school children should be taught about the life and death of Christ.
Here is a bit of the interview (my emphasis added):
LAUER: You say people are fed up with secularism. You feel that the story of the life and the death of Jesus Christ are essential to understanding our very country. And you want this story taught in public schools. Make your case for me.
O’REILLY: Okay. Kids, if they live in a secular home and go to public school, don’t know anything about Jesus. In fact, the only time they hear the word “Jesus” is when somebody’s yelling at them. “Jesus!” Okay? So they don’t know anything. Our constitution was forged on Judeo-Christian philosophy and tradition. You don’t believe that? Go to the Supreme Court. What’s outside of the Supreme Court? Moses holding the Ten Commandments, a sculpture.LAUER: Alright, but does that mean we teach the story of Jesus in public schools?
…
LAUER: I went to New York public schools, so I didn’t get it there. But I found a way to fill the void in other ways in my life.
O’REILLY: You shouldn’t have to go seek it, it’s part of our history and it’s a part of our heritage. Kids need to know what Judeo-Christian tradition is. Because that’s what all of our laws are based on. That’s what the country’s philosophy is based on.
You shouldn’t have to seek faith, according to O’Reilly, nor should the Christian faith have to reach out to you on its own. Government should bring it to you.
Why? Because there is a statue of Moses at the Supreme Court?
O’Reilly’s argument is nonsense. Yes, of course, most Americans at the time of the founding were some variety of Christian. And yet, the Founders had the good sense to leave God and Christ out of the Constitution, and to emphasize instead the freedom of Americans to choose our own brand of faith, without the government choosing for us.
Schools are free to teach *about* religion as part of history and literature classes to the extent that it’s relevant to the field, and taught in a way that is mindful of diverse faiths and avoids proselytizing. But that is very different from public schools teaching religion, or indoctrinating children into a religious tradition. That is the role of parents and clergy.
O’Reilly thinks we can teach kids about Christ in public school (presumably through his book) without crossing that line by making sure that teachers are “professional” about it. But his response to a question about teaching Christ while being sensitive to children of non-Christian faiths, he says, “That’s what forged the Constitution. If they don’t like it, that’s too bad.” Some professionalism.
Most importantly, Christianity is strong enough to thrive on the power of its message of love, hope, grace and redemption. That message is delivered successfully only when it is freely received.
All of that to say, Christians should not seek the government’s aid in spreading the Word. If we do anyway, (perhaps in a moment of O’Reillian weakness) the Constitution, thankfully, is there to say no.
