I am writing in response to Aaron Woell’s June 22 article, in which he claims that we don’t need religion to do a good job of raising our children.

I think too many of us have been sleeping through our history classes, and I would like to clear a few things up.

First, the Ten Commandments are not exclusively “Christian” — they are accepted by all Christian sects (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox), Jews, and Muslims, who accept Moses as a prophet of Allah.

The Bill of Rights does not have a “separation of church and state” clause. The Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … “

It was Thomas Jefferson who used the phrase “separation of church and state,” not in the context of religious restriction, but in the defense of maintaining the U.S. as a country accepting of all legitimate religious beliefs without prejudice of consequence to the individual.

The context of such a statement was made when Germany was “governmentally” Lutheran, England was “governmentally” Episcopalian, etc.

Jefferson and other founding fathers wanted to ensure that, whether one was Puritan, Quaker, Episcopalian, Deist, etc., all could find freedom to worship without governmental restrictions and interference.

In fact, our constitution was written and signed by a number of Deists.

Although there are some very fundamental differences between Deism and orthodox Christianity, the two had one thing in common at the time: A Judeo-Christian ethic.

We cannot even begin to talk about “ethics” until we have a common worldview, a common starting point.

If I place high value on life, I will believe certain things to be wrong, such as abortion.

If someone else places less priority on human life, they would support issues such as abortion.

We don’t agree.

Which of us has the better opinion?

Which one is the most ethical? There are strong arguments on both sides.

If Woell is not religious, as he claims, on what basis does he believe his views are right, and why should his views be espoused by society?

If he does not believe his views should be held widely, of what value are they?

If he thinks each individual should live by their own credo, there is nothing wrong with the Columbine massacre, as those two boys were simply acting out their own and can’t be held accountable to any other person’s values or ethics.

If Woell were to sit down and think about his ethics, he would most likely find it is a syncretism of Judeo-Christian ethics and semi-vaporous ideas of personal freedom that have little substance or support under legitimately logical scrutiny.

Our founding fathers placed great emphasis on personal freedom, as Woell asserts.

One of the reasons they allowed such freedom was that the people had the same ethic. If an entire group of people consistently holds the same opinion of what is right and wrong, there wouldn’t be a lot of dissension.

That is why we have “limited government” and our personal freedoms. It is implied that we must act within certain bounds of responsibility.

That’s why we have laws. If I use my freedom to murder someone, I have abandoned my right to freedom.

At the time our nation was founded, ethics were consistent across the board and we didn’t need as many laws as we have today.

As America has become culturally more diverse, people don’t share the same ethic anymore. Do we need to legislate the value of life? Whose appreciation for life is the best one? How far should we be allowed to go in acting on our principles?

Getting away from the abortion example, my point in regard to Woell’s article is this: Until we have a common worldview and set of ethics, his vision of carefree children in safe schools will never be a reality.

Perhaps our founding fathers wouldn’t have had much of a problem with the “Ten Commandments” bill.

---

Ben Brouwer

Junior

Sociology