I at first accepted the honor as reasonable, many had seen this an as an inspiration that improved their lives and influenced what it means to be an American,(although I do believe this is a simple and thinly veiled attempt for certain politicians to get an easy Christian label, we have to make laws that are universal and apolitical) . He was controversial, but so were some of the presidents honored in the rotunda. I was equating Graham to my personal inspiration Fred Rogers (Mr. Rogers), a Presbyterian minister, who I thought would have been fitting to honor at the rotunda. Then I started reading into why Graham was honored, Ryan said Graham had “spread the gospel in 185 countries during his 99 years on Earth, touching the lives of many and forever changing the course of the world’s spiritual health.” Fred Rogers, while, religious, was known as a moral and calm guidance for children and adults alike, he won government praise for nonreligious reasons, it wasn't the same. Graham is being praised for spreading the Gospel, I don't think that is inherently American, and by elevating him to this level of government praise will alienate people that are not Evangelical Christians. Furthermore of the thirty-three individuals honored int he capitol, all were public servants, save three. These three were two capitol police officers (who are basically public servants too), and Rosa Parks. Maybe non government employees should not be honored in a public setting , but either way I see a very pronounce difference between Rosa Parks and Billy Graham. One was devoted to spreading a religion, something the Constitution seeks to prevent entanglement with, and the other challenged laws that were, for one unjust and un-American, but was also unconstitutional. Billy Grahams mission was not American, it was Christian (or his interpretation of it). Donald Trump acknowledged this in his Speech above the casket, “Today we honor him as only three other previous private citizens have been. Like the faithful of Charlotte once did, we say a prayer that all across the land, the Lord will raise up men and women like Billy Graham to spread a message of love and hope to every precious child of God.” It just seems very obvious that the politicians and supporters of this action are motivated by the personal and religious aspects of Graham as opposed to any real American value or purpose excluding their belief that being Christian is integral to existing as an American.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote, "The fact is that Graham lived his life in service to his evangelical Christian religion, and the Bible that he believed was an infallible reference manual. He placed the Bible far above the Constitution.” Historians and Graham experts saying his life spanned a period when there was more of a shared concept of American “civil religion” — in other words, that being a pious person in and of itself had merit, is irrelevant to the constitution. I do believe that since Graham is being acknowledged do to being religious, that he and his religion are being privileged over all others in the nation.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote, "The fact is that Graham lived his life in service to his evangelical Christian religion, and the Bible that he believed was an infallible reference manual. He placed the Bible far above the Constitution.” Historians and Graham experts saying his life spanned a period when there was more of a shared concept of American “civil religion” — in other words, that being a pious person in and of itself had merit, is irrelevant to the constitution. I do believe that since Graham is being acknowledged do to being religious, that he and his religion are being privileged over all others in the nation.
9 comments:
Honoring Billy Graham, a renowned American evangelist, at the Capital Building's Rotunda seems like a slippery slope if you ask me. If, out of the 33 individuals whom have been granted Rotunda status, Graham is the first publicly religious figure, what precedent does this set for future religious activists to be recognized? Rather, House Speaker Paul Ryan, as well as President Donald Trump, have a Christian labeled agenda to push. If our leaders are laying Graham in a sacred resting area, they are ultimately honoring and establishing him as a key national leader, of which I see as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Moreover, to add fuel to the fire, there has been talk for a national holiday to remember Billy Graham. If he is already granted such a high and sacred status, what prevents him from being granted even more recognition as a holiday? Nonetheless, though I am a Christian, I see this as a slippery slope and ultimately a violation of the Establishment Clause.
I agree that the abnormality of honoring the first religious figure in the Capitol Rotunda is motivated by political agenda. The idea that an evangelical pastor is held to the same ceremonial standards as past presidents and civil rights heroes does send a message to the public about the favorability of Christianity to the political party in power. The quote stated in the Washington Post article, "Graham was the embodiment of a major stream of American culture. Not just religion, but American culture” is an opinion that I tend not to align with personally. I would imagine that the diverse population in the United States would also have a hard time agreeing with this narrow perspective. While I am unsure if this qualifies as an establishment of religion since Graham had secular roles within politics, the celebration of Graham's life in the Rotunda does seem to appeal to a certain white Protestant population, which happens to align with the Presidents voting base.
I think this brings up a very interesting point about which is more important, a man's works versus a man's religion. I think that the statements made about Graham being an embodiment of American culture are a little off the mark but if phrased in a different way I do not see an issue of entanglement. Graham served as an advisor to many presidents and if that was the reasoning for the honoring then I don't find that as too big an issue. I don't agree however with this being used to push a Christian motive and could be isolating to many Americans.
I agree with the point that there needs to be a different reason, rather than just a religious leader who was able to spread the word of god, for Billy Graham to be honored in such a way. When comparing Graham to the past honorees the induction of Graham would indeed create a complex precedent regarding the establishment of religion. I think there are a great many people who could make the argument for Graham to be honored not for religious reasons but for role as a public figure in American society and civil rights, and political advisory, but if he is being honored for spreading the word of God there is an issue.
I think I view this in a fairly similar way to previous commenters; there needs to be a clear distinction between his work and his religion. As long as the memorial is honoring his work as a presidential advisor I do not see a problem with the display. However, it does gets a little tricky when we start awarding and recognizing his religious oriented work, and that is where issues of entanglement come into play.
I see where this issue can get extremely tricky, as disagreeing or agreeing with the decision to honor Graham in the Rotunda either seems to discriminate against religious leaders or promote Christian religion above others. As I was reading another article about this honoring, I found a quote by John Fea, a historian of American religion at Messiah College, "Evangelical Christianity, whether you like it or not, has always been at the center of the Republic, since the 18th Century. It’s only in the last decade or so that evangelicals have been forced to live without cultural power, to be at the periphery. Graham was the embodiment of a major stream of American culture. Not just religion, but American culture.” Although I do see the potential issues regarding the separation of church and state, I do think the celebration of his contributions to American culture and foreign policy seem somewhat appropriate. However, ultimately, I believe that the Rotunda and government funds should not be used to celebrate a Christian leader over other important religious leaders. To avoid this issue, it may be easiest to avoid honoring religious leaders in the Rotunda.
I believe that the allowance of a religious figure to be honored within the Capitol’s rotunda will lead to a slippery slope that will only worsen. Of the individuals that have been honored within the rotunda, Billy Graham was the most prominent of religious figures and thus is the root of the problem. While I have no objection to some other form of way to pay homage to the late religious leader, I feel that the tribute paid within the capitol does not establish a clear separation between the church and state. If anything, he should be remembered as an American activist and recognized as such by the government rather than a religious leader.
Although it isn't the governments job to be outwardly hostile or dismissive of religion, I do believe that the honoring of Billy Graham at the Capital building was ill-advised and set a dangerous precedent. The very reason for the creation of the establishment clause was to ensure that the government didn't assert a preference for any particular sect or religious group. The reasoning behind honoring Graham lies in his religious work and prostelyzation over the years, i.e. something that only provides spiritual benefits to one sect. It's one thing for the state to acknowledge the death of an important religious leader, but another for it to provide such an extraordinary honor for nothing more than the furtherance of a religion. His work was nothing more than religious, and by giving him such an honor the government, quite literally, "respected an establishment of religion."
Post a Comment