I got a little reminder about why I write nonfiction today at Aaron’s football jamboree.
This is his first year out for football, so I was interested in getting to know the rest of the parents. I was standing on the sidelines watching the drills. One of the boys on the team hollered to the man standing next to me about what he had brought for the team’s snack. The man hollered back something about having picked up a twelve pack of something from the local warehouse store and his boy beamed. I was so amused by this exchange: the importance of the snack, the boy’s earnest query, Dad’s dutiful reply. I stopped taking photographs and grinned at the man.
I pointed out my son, and we struck up a conversation.
When I asked him what grade and school his son attended, he told me the boy had recently switched to a new school and was doing poorly. I told him I had had the same experience myself, switching to a new school.
The man surprised me by asking, “Did you make it?”
By this I understood him to mean, did you make it to graduation, are you a high school graduate, which I am not. I am embarrassed to say that I came this >< close to lying to the man. I felt a huge wave of shame roll over me–Mr. Memoir, a guy who has written about being a divorcee, an absentee father, shooting IV drugs, and even being homeless. There is just something intimidating about being asked something like this point blank in a conversation. I really wasn’t sure what to say. I started to bluster, but then I finally just smiled and said, “Nah–not really.”
This man grinned and said, “Me either.”
We had a good chuckle. I didn’t get his name, but I connected with this man in a way I would not have had I gone on about my time in college, the military, or even getting my GED.
The mind of Plato’s Cave, having accumulated shadows of ‘shadows of shadows’, lives in darkness. The darkness, which is the involuntary reflexive expression of “re-cognition”, prevents seeing.
A mind that does not accumulate shadows is a mind that cannot pre-meditate. A mind that does not premeditate is a mind that is much more than ‘not guilty’. A mind that does not premeditate is a mind that is “innocent”.
The mind of Plato’s Cave, in its unending reactions, behaves mechanically. This mechanical reaction of recognition, creates friction, and dissipates energy. In the darkness and the mechanical process, the mind conjures up more shadows. The complexity and disintegration grow and the mind decays.
The innocent mind is whole, acts wholly, and is ‘holy’. This mind is not put together nor is it man made.
The mind of Plato’s Cave forever repeats and operates within its frontiers. This mind does not look, it “looks for”. It can never see and only re-cognizes what it already knows.
In this repetition, there is never anything new.
The innocent mind, not being mechanical, never dissipates energy. The innocent mind does more than re-generate and re-create. There is no “re” in the innocent mind. There is no “again” in the innocent mind. The innocent mind “generates” and “creates”.
The mind of Plato’s Cave is always “the again”. This mind ages and is old.
The innocent mind does not age and is therefore forever new. This is creation.
Today, on the 29th day of the month of August, the Holy Church commemorates the Beheading of the Holy, Glorious, and Honorable Prophet and Forerunner of Christ our God, John the Baptist.
Of this holy day, which the Church observes with a strict fast, the Blessed Bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writes, “So John decreased by an head, even as Christ’s height was made higher on the Cross. The truth drew hatred. It could not be borne in patience that the holy man of God should utter a reproof, although he sought by his reproof nothing but the soul’s health of them to whom he addressed it. And they repaid him evil for the good he offered them.
“For what could the Baptist say but that whereof he was full? And what could they answer him but that whereof they were full? He sowed wheat, but he reaped thorns. He had said unto the king: It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife. Lust had got the better of the king, and he kept a woman whom it was not lawful for him to have, even his brother’s wife.
“But she pleased him, so that his cruelty was lulled. He respected the Saint who had spoken the truth to him. But the vile woman conceived hatred, and in due time brought forth what she had conceived. And when she brought forth, she bore a dancing girl who through her lasciviousness accomplished murder.”
How often does the truth, which saves and enlightens and sets free, draw out the hatred of those who oppose it because, by their evil manner of living, they have chosen to follow a lie. The number of lies in the world has appeared to increase to the point where many would not only oppose truth, but even refuse to acknowlege its existence, preferring instead to make many truths for themselves, submitting themselves to none of them in actuality, so much has man’s worship of himself supplanted the worship of God.
The preaching of the Honorable Forerunner, however, cut through the lies with which Herod, Herodias, and Salome had fooled themselves. Their evils were unmasked, not so that they would be shamed and humiliated, but so that they might recognize their sins and repent of them. Instead of repentance, however, their wounded pride moved them to resentment, and they returned evil for good.
For they did not believe the blessed man of God had done them a service out of love for the salvation of their souls, but instead they called good evil, and justified murder as a just redress for being wronged.
This scenario still plays out today, though too few censure evil with the grace, innocence, and spiritual authority of the Honorable Forerunner of Christ.
The Kontakion of today’s Feast, like all the hymns for the occasion, is most instructive:
“The beheading of the glorious Forerunner was by divine providence, that the coming of the Savior might be preached to those in hades. Let Herodias, therefore, mourn, she who sought unlawful murder; for she hath not affected the law of God, nor hath she sought eternal life, preferring the worldly one.”
Those who would prefer the passing worldly life to the real, eternal one are greatly to be pitied, but those who go so far as to seek unlawful murder mourn forever through the justice of God. This is not a truth that many people like to think about, but just because something is unpleasant does not make it uninstructive and inconducive to salvation. Some misguided and pitiable persons even go so far as to distort the truth and say that there will be no eternal punishment, or that God will destroy the souls of sinners to prevent them from suffering eternally. They think that this makes God more merciful. But, by teaching such things, they distort the Holy Gospel itself, a very grave crime.
For more on the Orthodox teaching on the eternal punishment, see Elder Cleopa’s excellent book “The Truth of our Faith,” Chapter 17 “On the Eternal Torments of Hell.”
Here’s an excerpt:
“God offers eternal joy to the righteous, who struggled for a time to carry out good works here on earth, but as a just and righteous God, He also chastises eternally the ungodly that transgressed in this temporal life. Why is it so? Because the wounds incurred from sin that are not healed in this life through the appropriate repentance will remain infected eternally in the presence of God.”
And, from “Nihilism,” by Fr. Seraphim Rose: “Hell is the love of God rejected…But God loves even such men too much to allow them simply to ‘forget’ Him and ‘pass away’…out of His presence which alone is life to men; He offers, even to those in Hell, His Love, which is torment to those who have not prepared themselves in this life to receive it.”
God loves every person, and this continues for eternity. Everyone feels the love. How we will feel it depends on us. If we reject God’s love in this life, we make a choice for eternal punishment–for by the mercy of God eternity is the unmitigated experience of God’s love. Of course, God wants everyone to accept His love, but He made us free to choose, giving us this life to make that choice. If God destroyed someone because He didn’t want them to suffer, that would mean that He would also be cutting them off from His love and going back on His promises of eternal life. If God destroyed a person, completely obliterated him, just so he wouldn’t suffer, He would be a very terrible God indeed. Who would love such a being that kills in the name of mercy? It would not be mercy at all, really.
So, in that all experience the fulfillment of the promises of God and the unmitigated experience of God’s love in eternity, we can say with several of the saints, wherever we find ourselves, in blessedness or in torment, glory to God for all things. God is just and merciful in all that He has done, is doing, and will do for us. The blame is rather with us for our sins. But, then, let us repent of them and God will forgive us and grant us again the opportunity to embrace His love. And so again and again until the hour God appoints for our eternal reunion with Him.
But those who reject God’s love, reject the truth in this life cannot embrace it in eternity. There, no longer able to lie to themselves, they are faced with the eternal revelation of truth and their rejection of it. Thus, they mourn, knowing they have none but themselves to blame.
On this day is commemorated also our Holy Father among the Saint Medericus (or Merry) of Autun in France (+700).
“St. Merry was born at Autun, in the 7th century, and from an early age realized that the end of human life is the sanctification and salvation of the soul. That he might wholly give himself to God, when he was still very young, he entered a local monastery, probably St. Martin’s in Autun.
“In that monastery then lived 54 fervent monks, whose penitential and regular lives were an object of edification to the whole country. Merry, in this company, grew up in habits of virtue by example, walking before them in every duty; and the reputation of his sanctity drew the eyes of all men upon him.
“The distractions which continual consultations from all parts gave him, and a fear of falling into vanity, made him resign his office and retire into a forest four miles from Autun, where he lay hid for some time. He earned himself all necessaries of life by the labor of his hands, and found this solitude sweet by the liberty it gave him of employing his time in heavenly contemplation and work.
“The place of his retreat at length becoming public, and being struck down by sickness, he was obliged to return to the monastery. After having edified his brethren and strengthened them in religious perfection, he again left them in old age in order to make a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Germanus of Paris (also a native of Autun) in that city.
“There, with one companion, St. Frou (or Frodulf), he chose his abode in a small cell adjoining a chapel dedicated in honor of St. Peter, in the north suburb of the city; and, after two years and nine months during which he bore with patience a painful lingering illness, he died happily about the year 700.”
–from Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Complete Edition, 1956.
Through the prayers of St. John the Baptist, St. Merry, and all the Saints, O Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us for Thou art good and lovest mankind. Amen.
Because oil prices are lower this year, it is reported that Social Security benefits will not contain a cost-of-living raise (COLA). What kind of sense is that? Medicare will continue to go up, medi-gap insurance will continue to rise, groceries, and everything else. Who else, but our Seniors, recipients of Social Security are going to be so penalized? If this isn’t a form of ‘pulling the plug,’ I don’t know what is. –dc
Because oil prices are lower this year, it is reported that Social Security benefits will not contain a cost-of-living raise (COLA). What kind of sense is that? Medicare will continue to go up, medi-gap insurance will continue to rise, groceries, and everything else. Who else, but our Seniors, recipients of Social Security are going to be so penalized? If this isn't a form of 'pulling the plug,' I don't know what is. --dc
If you’ve been exploring spiritual circles for any period of time, you may get a little tired of hearing words like “unity”, “enlightenment”, and “oneness”. Ideas like “awareness” and “existence”. Not to mention all the oft-used superlatives like “extraordinary” and “astonishing”. The list goes on and on. Pick the theme of most posts on this blog. (laughs)
In “Questioning the Common Phrase“, Takuin explores why he questions such terms. How a person may be well read and have mastered the concepts of being one. But how that must be questioned and cast aside for one to actually be it.
Thinking “I am One” has NOTHING to do with being it. As I’ve outlined elsewhere, true oneness is several states of consciousness removed from an ego-driven state. It cannot even be comprehended by the mind as it is transcends even the mind of God.
One of the things that can motivate a review is concept fatigue. We reach a point where we begin to see through the ideas and reject them. We begin to outgrow the teaching we have so carefully studied. If we don’t see that right away, that old seekers restlessness arises and we tire of what once inspired us.
At that point, some people will step off the quest. They’ll find it pointless and let it go. Perhaps take a sabbatical. Or seek a better teaching. A few turn quite negative about the whole thing. But some will catch the drift of where it’s going. That there is something deeper to spirituality than a bunch of ideas, however enticing a teacher or teaching is.
That’s when some real magic can happen. Not being held so much any more, our house of cards can really crumble. Inquiry can go very deep.
While words can point you in the direction of what is true, in the end all of us must see for ourselves. But we have to look without glasses.
Davidya
Good morning friends. In time of our life we sometime doubt on God. We sometimes feel that even if we did our best to improve our lives, still it’s not enough that’s why we are experiencing hardship in life. But with God’s grace everything is possible. We should just believe in God, because he is everything.
Grace plays a significant role in our spiritual evolution. So say seers and scriptures. The Katha Upanishad mentions that only one who is chosen by the atman or consciousness, realizes the Truth.
Ramana Maharshi mentions that God’s ways are inscrutable. In the presence of the Sun, which is ever shining, some buds blossom, not all. The fault however does not lie with the Sun, though it is true that the bud cannot blossom by itself. It requires the sunlight to do it. Grace is thus recognized as a key ingredient for deliverance.
Faith and unconditional surrender help us to receive Divine Grace. Whether it is meditation, prayer, introspection or self-enquiry, the route used would depend on a person’s temperament and inclination. What is encouraging is that sincere steps taken on the spiritual path lead to progress that we might not even be aware of.
Psychiatrist Scott Peck who wrote The Road Less Travelled reveals an interesting perspective to the aspect of Grace and healing. He points out that much as one examines, the workings of Grace cannot be ascribed to a set pattern. Try as we might to obtain grace, it may elude us, yet it might find us when least expected. He talks of neurotic patients who, on an average, are easier to treat than those who suffer social behavior disorders. Surprisingly, he also reports of cases of complete turnaround amongst psychosis patients, while those suffering from the milder forms of neurosis have made insignificant progress, despite prolonged treatment.
The element helping the revival process has been identified as the “will to grow” akin to earnestness and faith demonstrated by a spiritual aspirant. This concept again has an element of mystery shrouding it as evidence is rather inconclusive on the dominant role of parental nurturing and love.
There were many way of breaking a heart. Stories were full of hearts broken by love, but what really broke a heart was taking away its dream — whatever that dream might be.
-Pearl S. Buck
Is there a dream that keeps you awake at night? Is there a dream that drives you forward and that would fulfill your purpose on earth? Is there dream that inspires you to think beyond yourself? Is there a dream that carries promise and hope and encourages you to dare great achievements?
Don’t let it slip through your fingers. Don’t let it be taken away. Don’t let it break your heart.
“100% Vegetarianism Daily”
By: Anonymous Kind Looking Street Prophet
Vegetable Mineral Ethereal
Plants Universe Space
We chemically all dissolve back into
But! 7 years of this diet is sure to take 50-100% of your DNA soul material
Back into God’s Genesis 1:29-30 salvation plan.
50-100% more salvation w/ all 3
No less.
Attention: UFO, UN, England Axis, USA, Spain, Allies
Enforce For Everything’s own good.
New Testament God says “Behold I stand at the gate.” “I am the vine.”
(Seedless) (See Deathless)
See over all. Please more.
100% Vegetarianism daily.
100% Iron Daily.
100% Magnet Massages Daily.
(Notice that God is ¾ good. Genesis 1:31)
Get a new body from food before rigor mortis
(4-6 hours after heart stops)
But Vegetarians bodies do not.
Trains your body material to feel earth’s core of iron radiation and magnetic field
which trains sould material to feel touch of other souls in space-not die from alone.
Nothing to do.
Alive until resurrected by iron in cells magnetized by magnet massages/waist, neck, ankle.
Wristbands of magnets extra strong hardware—drugstores.
Difference between body and soul.
REVELATIONS LOGIC
WORKS COMPLETE
Also, much body weight of food we eat go out of our body every seven years.
Also, they get rigor mortis whether you’re ready or not.
Salvation is 100% vegetarianism daily.
The difference between soul and body
the meat eater gets stiff in rigor mortis
and its material touches common material and stars and planets come apart
until the universe ends.
“One nation under God” Constitution preamble
Genesis 1:29-30
100% iron daily to magnetize and teach cell stuff to heed the other being of earth’s
magnetic field
and iron core radiation go through all earth.
UFOs see other UFOs in stars shaped like antennae heads and they stop all life back
to mineral kingdom to stop death.
Head of Orion
Sons of God and Earthlings Antennae head of Orion
Antennae Head Etacyenus
Sons of Man and Both do God’s get straight before no change for suns
and Planets in future plan or we all going to find what wternally keeps happening to us:
Minus memory.
As we change with every new day so as our habits gotta get some rest, sleep, relaxation.
My boss says “a change is better than a rest.”
760 degrees Fahrenheit below Zero
all black structureless space material alone as meat eaters in rigor moris and all common touch by the (thou shall not kill
Heaven and thou Shall Not Kill Earth)
meat eaters kill God.
Vegetarian (Animal) Vegetable mineal (Universe) Ethereal (Kosmos) Common
Touch faint personality
TETRAHEDRONS OF SMALLEST POSSIBLE SIZE
souls trained when taken into universe by heed touch of magnetic field
of iron core fusion radiation to carry on in structureless ether
the God Common Touch Live.
On Earth as it is in heaven—no such thing—all feels forever—same as we chemically
dissolve into space stuff again but electro-magnetic into iron and vegetables
fed dead bodies plus ground up meat eaters with their familiar food material
and carbon and iron dust
magnetized strong enough to wake the dead.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” – First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Public schools across America are warming up again, and the smells of pencil shavings, new backpacks and cafeteria lunches will soon fill the halls. With the sorrow of leaving summer behind and the excitement of new things ahead there comes a perennial question of how the US Supreme Court will allow God to fit into it all. After the landmark 1962 Supreme Court decision Engle vs Vitale, which ended school-sponsored prayer in American public schools, there has been confusion over whether students or teachers are allowed to pray, read their Bibles or engage in other religious activity on school grounds.
In August of 1995, the Secretary of Education issued guidelines on Religious Expression in Public Schools to clarify which activities were and were not constitutional and to prevent religious discrimination against public school students.
On February 7, 2003, then-Education Secretary Rod Paige issued a similar set of guidelines, updated under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to make adherence to the guidelines a requirement for receiving federal funding. Under the guidelines, schools must annually submit in writing to their state education agency that they are following the guidelines in good faith. Those who fail to attest to their compliance in writing, and those who have been faulted for failing to obey the guidelines, risk losing their federal funding. The guidelines clarify the religious rights of public school students during school hours. They note:
“As the Court has explained in several cases [ie Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe (2000) and Board of Educ. v. Mergens (1990)], ‘there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.’”
Schools must neither encourage nor discourage religious expression, and they may not discriminate against activity simply because it is religious in nature. As long as students initiate the religious activity themselves, and as long as the religious expression falls within the schools’ rules of order, it cannot be discriminated against.
According to the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the First Amendment “requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.”
So, how does that fit into everyday life at school?
Free Time:
If students have free time during which they may engage in non-religious activities – recess, lunch-time, and so forth – then they may also use that time for religious activities such as prayer or Bible reading.
Class Assignments:
Students may express their religious beliefs in class assignments – written, oral, or art work – without discrimination because the work is religiously oriented. Teachers are to grade assignments based on their academic quality without penalty or reward for religious themes or content.
Clubs:
Students may form prayer groups or religious clubs “to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities groups.” According to the Supreme Court in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), that includes access to school facilities. If a school’s policy only permits clubs directly related to the curriculum, like history or math groups but not jazz or sailing groups, then it could also prohibit a religious club that is not connected to school curriculum.
Advertising:
If schools allow non-religious school groups to promote their activities through posters or school newspapers, then religious groups, like Bible or prayer clubs, must also be allowed to promote their activities.
Teachers:
According to the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and School Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp,(1963), public school teachers represent the state and may not lead classes in prayer or Bible reading. Teachers also may not compel children to engage in religious activities. Yet, teachers do retain their First Amendment rights in the public schools. While teachers must remain neutral and neither encourage or discourage their students’ religious expression, teachers may pray or study the Bible by themselves or with other teachers.
Student Speeches:
There has been a lot of controversy over how to handle student speeches that contain religious themes. The guidelines offer a position that might surprise a few people. They say:
“Student speakers at student assemblies and extracurricular activities such as sporting events may not be selected on a basis that either favors or disfavors religious speech. Where student speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content.”
In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court prohibited schools from specifically choosing somebody to pray at assemblies, and schools cannot pick students to speak because of religious or anti-religious motivation. However, as the Supreme Court explained in Board of Educ. v. Mergens (1990), “The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated.” That applies even to public settings with public audiences. If it dares, a school can offer a neutral disclaimer saying that the content of student speeches is solely their own and not the school’s, freeing students to speak about religious or non-religious or anti-religious themes as they choose.
Kevin Hasson, president of the Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, commented, “What the guideline says is that if is truly student-initiated — if it’s not rigged by the school district somehow — then the First Amendment protects it.”
And if a school chooses strict pre-approval of all graduation speeches? Families and students may pray and talk about God freely at baccalaureate services.
Schools and teachers, parents and students should discuss these guidelines and become familiar with the religious freedoms students have in the public schools. Americans need to know they do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” – (Print)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” – First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Public schools across America are warming up again, and the smells of pencil shavings, new backpacks and cafeteria lunches will soon fill the halls. With the sorrow of leaving summer behind and the excitement of new things ahead there comes a perennial question of how the US Supreme Court will allow God to fit into it all. After the landmark 1962 Supreme Court decision Engle vs Vitale, which ended school-sponsored prayer in American public schools, there has been confusion over whether students or teachers are allowed to pray, read their Bibles or engage in other religious activity on school grounds.
In August of 1995, the Secretary of Education issued guidelines on Religious Expression in Public Schools to clarify which activities were and were not constitutional and to prevent religious discrimination against public school students.
On February 7, 2003, then-Education Secretary Rod Paige issued a similar set of guidelines, updated under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to make adherence to the guidelines a requirement for receiving federal funding. Under the guidelines, schools must annually submit in writing to their state education agency that they are following the guidelines in good faith. Those who fail to attest to their compliance in writing, and those who have been faulted for failing to obey the guidelines, risk losing their federal funding. The guidelines clarify the religious rights of public school students during school hours. They note:
“As the Court has explained in several cases [ie Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe (2000) and Board of Educ. v. Mergens (1990)], ‘there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.’”
Schools must neither encourage nor discourage religious expression, and they may not discriminate against activity simply because it is religious in nature. As long as students initiate the religious activity themselves, and as long as the religious expression falls within the schools’ rules of order, it cannot be discriminated against.
According to the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the First Amendment “requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.”
So, how does that fit into everyday life at school?
Free Time:
If students have free time during which they may engage in non-religious activities – recess, lunch-time, and so forth – then they may also use that time for religious activities such as prayer or Bible reading.
Class Assignments:
Students may express their religious beliefs in class assignments – written, oral, or art work – without discrimination because the work is religiously oriented. Teachers are to grade assignments based on their academic quality without penalty or reward for religious themes or content.
Clubs:
Students may form prayer groups or religious clubs “to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities groups.” According to the Supreme Court in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), that includes access to school facilities. If a school’s policy only permits clubs directly related to the curriculum, like history or math groups but not jazz or sailing groups, then it could also prohibit a religious club that is not connected to school curriculum.
Advertising:
If schools allow non-religious school groups to promote their activities through posters or school newspapers, then religious groups, like Bible or prayer clubs, must also be allowed to promote their activities.
Teachers:
According to the Supreme Court in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and School Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp,(1963), public school teachers represent the state and may not lead classes in prayer or Bible reading. Teachers also may not compel children to engage in religious activities. Yet, teachers do retain their First Amendment rights in the public schools. While teachers must remain neutral and neither encourage or discourage their students’ religious expression, teachers may pray or study the Bible by themselves or with other teachers.
Student Speeches:
There has been a lot of controversy over how to handle student speeches that contain religious themes. The guidelines offer a position that might surprise a few people. They say:
“Student speakers at student assemblies and extracurricular activities such as sporting events may not be selected on a basis that either favors or disfavors religious speech. Where student speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression, that expression is not attributable to the school and therefore may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content.”
In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court prohibited schools from specifically choosing somebody to pray at assemblies, and schools cannot pick students to speak because of religious or anti-religious motivation. However, as the Supreme Court explained in Board of Educ. v. Mergens (1990), “The proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to censor is not complicated.” That applies even to public settings with public audiences. If it dares, a school can offer a neutral disclaimer saying that the content of student speeches is solely their own and not the school’s, freeing students to speak about religious or non-religious or anti-religious themes as they choose.
Kevin Hasson, president of the Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, commented, “What the guideline says is that if is truly student-initiated — if it’s not rigged by the school district somehow — then the First Amendment protects it.”
And if a school chooses strict pre-approval of all graduation speeches? Families and students may pray and talk about God freely at baccalaureate services.
Schools and teachers, parents and students should discuss these guidelines and become familiar with the religious freedoms students have in the public schools. Americans need to know they do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
Smith continued to be certain there was something wrong with his Calvinist teachings, but as he continued to read every issue of the Christian Baptist, he still retained a healthy skepticism of whether Alexander Campbell was right. By 1825, he was convinced that creeds were wrong, and he implored churches to reject them.
Soon he was certain that Calvinism was a plague on the Kentucky Baptists. He urged people to become Christians by believing that Jesus is the Messiah and obeying Him in baptism. In turning so directly against his earlier teachings, he had to face a dejected and aged mother’s influence, and to refuse the pressures of a great host of his friends. It was, however, a matter of conscience to Smith. He could not preach something he believed to be wrong, and he could not abstain from standing in the way of something that endangered the salvation of numerous souls. There was no doubt in his mind that the Calvinism of the Baptists was doing just that. By 1826, he had joined the preachers of Kentucky in the plea to return to the ancient order of Christianity.
The opposition of the Baptist Association was not unexpected. When the North District Association had their annual meeting in 1827, Smith went fully expecting them to take action against him. A letter was read, not calling him by name, but rather referred to “certain ones,” charging guilt of the following three “heresies”: 1) Reading from Campbell’s translation of the Bible rather than the King James Version; 2) Saying, “I immerse you” instead of “I baptize you” when administering baptism; 3) Allowing the participants to break their own bread when observing the Lord’s Supper rather than having the preacher do it for them in advance. When Smith heard these charges, he promptly leapt to his feet and bellowed, “I plead guilty to them all!” After considerable conflict, Smith’s answers to each charge gained him sympathy with the people, but disdain from the clergy. In spite of the threat to their power, a non-decision was made: any action would be postponed until the following year.
It should be noted that, though there was overwhelming opposition, Smith did not stand alone. He was blessed with such company as Jacob Creath Sr., Jacob Creath Jr., and John T. Johnson as they, in their turn, joined the host who pled for a return to the ancient order. They stood by one another as they each received their anathema from the Elkhorn, Franklin, and North District Associations. Together, they counted it a joy to suffer for the cause of truth. They planted the seed of the kingdom all over Kentucky and saw hundreds, perhaps thousands, scripturally immersed into Christ, and each lent their efforts to the establishment of many congregations throughout the state.
As a gospel preacher, Smith had a style all his own, often employing his rapier wit to illustrate his points. He was reputed to never be without an answer, no matter the unexpected occasion. Once when he had immersed several members of a family, he came face to face with the father, who was not at all pleased, though having once been a close personal friend. Smith simply greeted him: “Good morning, my brother.”
The older man trained upon him a look of scorn, and replied, “I would rather claim kin with the devil himself.”
“Go, then,” said Smith, “and honor thy father!”
In his preaching, he was very hard on the false doctrines, particularly Calvinism; even to the point that his wife occasionally let him know, gently, that she thought he might be a little too severe and should let up a little. On one such occasion, Smith held up his glass of water and said, “Nancy, can I fill this tumbler with wine till I have first emptied it of water? Neither can I get the truth in the minds and hearts of the people… till I have disabused them of their error.”
It is just that sort of illustration that showed the natural turn of Smith’s mind. He was fearless, positive, often humorous, and always uncompromising with the truth and its presentation.
