iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Bishop James Magness

GET UPDATES FROM Bishop James Magness
 

A Religious Reflection for Independence Day, 2011

Posted: 07/04/11 07:34 AM ET

As we celebrate the 235th anniversary of our existence as a nation, we have many things for which to celebrate and be thankful. One of the bedrocks for our country which I most appreciate is the way we have maintained our sense of religious freedom and kept to the tenets of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Through life experience I have learned that our commitment to religious freedom requires renewal with each successive generation. Never can we take for granted that all of our citizens will understand and appreciate this crucial component of our history.

In the current era of expanding religious diversity and pluralism, a striking number of our fellow citizens are voicing their opinion that we are an exclusively Christian nation with little room for other faith traditions. I have often wondered if there is something more to this attitude than a simple quest for religious purity. Scott Bader-Saye partially addresses this question for me in his book Following Jesus in a Culture of FEAR (Brazos Press, Grand Rapids: 2007). Bader-Saye raises for me the question of whether such Christian exclusivity could be built upon a foundation of fear, a fear that other religions will push Christianity from the center of the public square. As I read Bader-Saye's book I wonder if such ways of thinking are symptoms of the ever-present fears of life in a post 9/11 world. It seems to me that we may be at a societal crossroads at which we are faced with a choice between the embrace of religious diversity or the development of a Constantine-like city-state that is governed by the tenets of the scriptures. Yes, I recognize that life will never be as simple as an either/or decision, but the implications of these decisions are significant for me.

During the early years of my professional career as a Navy chaplain I learned a very important lesson about religious diversity. In 1980 when I was a young lieutenant chaplain I was asked to participate in a retirement ceremony for a Navy captain. Without thinking very much about my constituents at the ceremony, I offered a prayer with a closing something like: "In the name of Christ our Lord." Afterward the newly-minted retiree came up to me and calmly said that though he was thankful that I had participated, he was a practicing Jew who did not appreciate my prayers for him that were concluded in Jesus' name. That day I became aware of how much I had offended one of God's children. Through this experience I learned that the context of ministry for a military chaplain, who in this case happened to be a priest of The Episcopal Church, was radically different than that of the parishes I had served in preceding years.

During the next 24 additional years of my active service to the men and women of the Armed Services I became mindful that my vocation was to be a religious leader called to care for all uniformed men and women, regardless of their religious affiliation, or lack of same. As a practicing Christian chaplain I learned to be very judicious to distinguish between prayers offered in public government and military command functions from prayers offered for my own Christian faith community.

When I took the commissioning oath as a Navy Chaplain Corps officer I began to realize that I had made a commitment to care for the religious needs of all those committed to my care, not just the Christians. Over time I learned to ensure that my people always had access to appropriate religious support and simultaneously could be protected from inappropriate religious incursions. I learned that the religious needs of each Marine, Sailor, Coast Guardsman, Soldier, and Airman always took precedence over my own needs. Though on occasion, I have offered prayers that would not include the name of Jesus, this by no means implied that I had any less of a commitment to the Lordship of Jesus in my life. It only meant that I was mindful of the diversity of religious traditions of others for whom my prayers were offered.

Within the public square, whether it is in the local city hall or in an Army battalion formation, I have come to believe that the religious needs of the person or persons to whom I offer ministry are of higher importance than my own religious needs. Prior to granting my ecclesiastical endorsement to Episcopal clergy who seek to serve as military chaplains, they must affirm for me that they are so well formed and mature in their Christian beliefs that they are not threatened by those whose beliefs may be different from theirs. This part of their Christian formation includes an understanding that they are not overwhelmed by a need to impose their beliefs upon another person within the military service.

Frequently I hear the supporters of religious diversity calling for tolerance and coexistence. I have concluded that in our country the demands of dynamic pluralism render religious tolerance and coexistence as inadequate. If our country is to continue to be the celebrated nation many of us have come to cherish, I realize that we may want to take our attitudes about religious diversity to the next level. That next level is the embrace of religious respect and intentional inclusion. With an appreciation of American history, there are plenty of reasons to believe that through the exercise of religious respect and inclusion that we will be a stronger and more united country.

I recognize that the tension between religious diversity and Christian exclusivity can at times be difficult. My best hope is that this tension will be marked by a spirit of creativity. I believe that as long as we ensure that there is an honored place at the table of civic life for all persons of all faiths, we will fulfill our responsibility to continue to make our great country a place where all citizens are valued and appreciated.

Bishop James "Jay" Magness is Bishop Suffragan for Federal Ministries of The Episcopal Church. Based in Washington DC, he is responsible for the pastoral care and oversight for armed forces chaplains, military personnel and families as well as oversight of federal hospitals, prisons, and correctional facilities. He retired from the U.S. Navy in 2003 in the rank of Captain, serving as command chaplain of U.S. Joint Forces Command and fleet chaplain for the U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Prior to those assignments, from 1997 to 2000 he was on the Navy Chief of Chaplains' staff as personnel manager of the Navy Chaplain Corps.

 
As we celebrate the 235th anniversary of our existence as a nation, we have many things for which to celebrate and be thankful. One of the bedrocks for our country which I most appreciate is the way ...
As we celebrate the 235th anniversary of our existence as a nation, we have many things for which to celebrate and be thankful. One of the bedrocks for our country which I most appreciate is the way ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 147
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
Misterioso Adversario
THE THIRST MUTILATOR!
03:39 PM on 07/05/2011
"One of the bedrocks for our country which I most appreciate is the way we have maintained our sense of religious freedom and kept to the tenets of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Through life experience I have learned that our commitment to religious freedom requires renewal with each successive generation. Never can we take for granted that all of our citizens will understand and appreciate this crucial component of our history."

A funny statement, seeing as most Christians don't realize that the First Amendment is a two way street. Yes it protects people of religion, but it also protects those of us who do not believe in religion, a fact that many religions people are more than willing to ignore.
06:13 AM on 07/05/2011
I'm all for religious freedom if it is paired with freedom from religion. more than other  industrial nations, the US gives churches special tax breaks, and  allows censorship of views which question religion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
notdarkyet
End the Drug War.
11:41 AM on 07/05/2011
Yep. They censored my Mark Twain comment on the Spanish American war.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rory Canfield
Rwy'n ysbaddu fy cath, nawr mae'n ryddfrydol
09:38 AM on 07/06/2011
Allows censorship of views that question religion, really, you must have examples of this right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
notdarkyet
End the Drug War.
10:49 PM on 07/04/2011
In 1610 a Catholic priest wrote to ask if the capture, transport and enslavement of African blacks was legal by church doctrine. The reply: I think your Reverence should have no scruples on this point because this matter has been examined by a Board of Conscience in Lisbon. They were all learned men as well as all the bishops and did not find fault with it. Even the Fathers themselves buy these slaves for our service without any scruples.

I have a million of these stories.
12:49 PM on 07/06/2011
notdarkyet, I'll be happy to deal with the first 50,000. 1 million seems a bit much but lets start with this one. Is it another urban legend starting to make its way around the internet? Who was this priest, who did he write to?? What's a Board of Conscience and why didn't he write to the Bishop of Rome or get an opinion handed down from the Magistarium?
Placed in proper context, not even the great J.C. spoke out against slavery for the reason that slavery wasn't the issue but how a person treated his slaves. I don't have more than a few stories myself but slavery in the U.S. fell out of favor with many because it was more economical to just hire men as needed. Slavery meant that Master was obligated to his slave for lifetime care, feeding and accommodation. A lifetime guarantee for many against becoming destitute. Pleas post a copy of the letter and response so that I can examine it for proper context.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
notdarkyet
End the Drug War.
03:49 PM on 07/06/2011
It's in the People's History of the United States. The whole letter was too long for me to be allowed to put here. Madison said he made $235 a year off every slave and it only cost him $12-$13 for upkeep. I agree about the JC part and many priests and ministers of conscience have done good work for the poor and oppressed. All I'm saying is religion was used, from the pulpit and other places, to justify slavery and subjugating the Native heathens. Some preachers have come a long way in their thinking. Others act like they were still living two thousand years ago. You cannot deny that religion was used to oppress large groups of people for hundreds of years. Of course the Quakers were some of the first and most ardent speakers on ending it.
photo
dpkjj
Peace on Earth
10:00 PM on 07/04/2011
I am bewildered. It seems as if the majority of commenters are using this thoughtful, compassionate, intelligent essay to vent their anger at religion, government, Christians, left-wing, right-wing, war, peace, and the world in general. Why?

Bishop Magness, as someone who came to the Episcopal church late in life, I thank you for your good words , your faith, and your sensitivity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gerald Treadwell
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?"
12:59 AM on 07/05/2011
I agree .
02:54 AM on 07/05/2011
hear hear
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:52 PM on 07/04/2011
Beautiful article sir, thank you. As a Unitarian and a Buddhist total love your view.

I find defining God to be a valuable first step. For me, God is the idealization of the collective consciousnesses.

Well said sir.
photo
txadams
"Here, let me spark up that Mary Jane for you"
07:29 PM on 07/04/2011
Nice talk about religious freedom and acceptance of diversity but when push comes to shove believers will square off with their own to survive. Think not? The most honorable, patriotic atheist in this country wouldn't stand a chance in hell (if there was one) of even getting elected dog catcher in nearly any community in this country. Believers talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
de-meme-ing
Buying USA Feeds USA, Supports/Preserves USA
08:48 PM on 07/04/2011
If an honorable, patriotic atheist can't get elected then I maybe that proves hell exists, not just for that atheist, but all of us, and not because believers lack knowledge, but credibility?
photo
Misterioso Adversario
THE THIRST MUTILATOR!
03:40 PM on 07/05/2011
The only thing it proves is that people won't vote for someone who doesn't believe in God, no matter how qualified they are for the job.
researcher
researcher
06:00 PM on 07/04/2011
I hope christians will someday answer these questions in their own mind of the following.

we are the most christian nation with more as a per cent age of americans attending a christian church then any other industrialized nation but yet we have the following conditions in our nation.

more in prison per capita then any other industrialized nation.

largest military per capita in the world.

largest industrial military complex in the world.

720 military bases in the world.

engaged in two unwinable wars.

we tortured during the bush admin and no one was held accountable for that torture.

wall street, bank, and insurance fraud with little accountability.

an illegal war started with iraq and no one held accountable as war criminals.

what I find interesting is the religious folks think and preach that more americans should be attending church and be christian. that is the power of the paradigm effect in spite of the evidence we want more of the same even as it leads to self destruction.
photo
thorrsman
Why should I define myself by quoting others?
06:17 PM on 07/04/2011
"we tortured during the bush admin and no one was held accountabl­e for that torture."

Wrong. The Left, for political purposes CLAIM that torture was used. The reality is something altogether different. I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the torture of water-boarding, as used in medieval times and by nations such as Japan during WWII. And then look at what was called "water-boarding" as used by American interrogators in a very, very few cases. You will find a vast difference between the two, not only in the procedure, but in the goal of true torture and the goal of what was used to gain information from known, self-confessed, proud terrorists--criminals representing no government--who claimed to know about more attacks planned against American citizens.
06:51 PM on 07/04/2011
You do know the full details of what happened at Abu Ghraib, do you not? Why don't you go see some of the pictures. Then we can actually consider your opinion, water-boarding was never even mentioned in the original comment, although whether any more ethical now is debatable
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:57 PM on 07/04/2011
You poor fool. Let me explain what NOT TORTURE is. We did not torture the Nazis up for the Nuremberg trials. We gave the a room, music of their choice, a light, books of their choice, and when we "interrogated" them, we talked. That's it. We got confessions. We gained the respect of the world. Torture is the least likely tech for getting info, and creates far more terrorists than it capacities. Figure it out.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gerald Treadwell
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?"
12:46 AM on 07/05/2011
hmm, we have a large population of christians.but america embraces non believers and all other religions as well (freedom of religion) christians dont run the country (exclusively) and some that claim to be christians have never read or studied the bible, some have other reasons for claiming to be somthing when they really dont believe..in short: we have all kinds of believers and non- there not christian owned prisons:its not an exclusive christian military: there not christian wars: as for politicians they believe in seperation of church and state, as for crime and criminals fraud and torture, I think they are all very wrong, I dont like It any better than you do, and Im a christian.but I am just one, there are many other christian viewpoints Im sure. Im also a Vetran, and I have no need to answer such things in my own mind,hope faith and love are the things I hold dear,and I strive not to judge others, and to try to see everyone as a child of god and treat them as I would any friend of mine.If more people would do that, christian or not, the world would be a happier place in my oppinion.
05:03 PM on 07/04/2011
I guess it's a nice gesture but "tolerating" others isn't the goal. Acceptance should be the end result (which doesn't mean you need to adopt all points of view.) It's interesting how religious "inclusion" seems to only regard other religions. Not subscribing to any faith is just as valid of a position as any. The founders of this country specifically mentioned a separation of church and state as they fled the oppression of a tyrannical religion and wanted to make sure that would not happen again. Little did they know we would be headed right back into the same situation.
photo
thorrsman
Why should I define myself by quoting others?
06:20 PM on 07/04/2011
Why? Why should anyone be expected to be "accepting" of those whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to your own? Tolerance is a difficult goal enough. Expecting those of one religion to accept those of another, or expecting Atheists to "accept" theists seems to be overreaching.

The goal of some seem to be to set goals and expectations all out of keeping with the realities of humanity, mostly so they can deride others when those draconian goals are not reached.

But I am willing to tolerate your extremism, though not accept it.
07:03 PM on 07/04/2011
Well, by definition accept is to understand and regard as normal. I didn't ask you to adopt or believe in what others believe. I wouldn't expect that, even though most Christians I know are determined to force that upon others when it comes to their religion. That is neither here nor there though because it's interesting to me how you assert that it's extreme to accept others. What's the norm? To be mortal enemies with those who do not agree with you? As an Atheist I know I disagree with fellow Atheists on many things but we still accept one another. I don't just "tolerate" the majority of the world because they are not Atheists as well. If it's a slow evolution towards being a better society I definitely prefer people moving to tolerance rather than staying closed minded and prejudiced. I'm sure it sounds too optimistic to think we can all get there but it's really not that difficult.
03:54 PM on 07/04/2011
@ IHeartCapitalism - Have you forgotten that our "Christian Creator" also happens to be the Jewish Creator AND the Islamic Creator? And, sadly, I must point out that although we are a nation with a large majority of citizens who have some historical connection to Christianity, if all those "good Christians" actually attended church every Sunday, the traffic jams would be unmanageable. Weekly church attendance peaked more than fifty years ago, and as much as it saddens me to admit it, MOST people today have NO church affiliation, much less attend church on a regular basis.
de-meme-ing
Buying USA Feeds USA, Supports/Preserves USA
04:39 PM on 07/04/2011
The Old Testament/Torah and the New Testament are a collection of texts written by Jews.

The Creator, Originator, and Source of Christianity is Jesus Christ. God, being a necessary being is found necessarily in the name and personhood of Jesus Christ. It really is that simple.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GhostOfFDR
Your micro-bio is too brilliant to be approved
07:53 PM on 07/04/2011
It's amazing the illogic that religion brings forth.
03:38 PM on 07/04/2011
I don't see how someone can serve both a military organization and God. The first is what the Bible calls Mammon. Remember the story of the coin with Caesar's face on it?
Being a chaplain must carry a terrible moral hazard.
photo
thorrsman
Why should I define myself by quoting others?
06:23 PM on 07/04/2011
No. A soldier needs his God as much--and usually more--than any other man. Ministering to the needs of those with faith--and, for that matter, those without faith who need a kindly ear and a firm shoulder--is a part of the high calling of military chaplains.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GhostOfFDR
Your micro-bio is too brilliant to be approved
11:25 AM on 07/05/2011
There are no believers in a foxhole.
IHeartCapitalism
Howard Roark laughed.
03:36 PM on 07/04/2011
America is a Christian country, anyone who says different has never read the Constitution. We are endowed by our CREATOR.
photo
Semprini
Stamp out and abolish redundancy
03:53 PM on 07/04/2011
Where in the constitution does it mention a "creator" or "Christianity", or even god? Creator does not mean Christianity.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ric Bucklew
05:16 PM on 07/04/2011
You must get your education from Glen Beck!
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
12:54 AM on 07/05/2011
You must get your education from Keith Olbermann & Rachel Maddows. Historical fact only clarifies the obvious intent of the framers. Religion was a bigger part of our governments of the day. Non-establishment prevented the federalist interference on state sponsored religion. With the exception of Conn. Maryland and Mass. the colonies all established the Church of England and weren't disestablished until well after our independence. Go figure. With a little help from Google, you may well become informed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:32 PM on 07/04/2011
I true separation of church and state would not have my taxes going to the Chaplin core for this nonsense.
photo
thorrsman
Why should I define myself by quoting others?
06:25 PM on 07/04/2011
Fortunately, the mythical "separation of church and state" exists no where in the laws of America, but only in the minds of the radical few who despise religion.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ric Bucklew
09:26 PM on 07/04/2011
It was made the law by a decision of the Supreme Court in the 1940's.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
practiceempathy
Tolerance need not yield to willful ignorance.
09:12 AM on 07/05/2011
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320. This is his second known use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
nastywolf
Pass 28th Amendment: Separation of Cash & State
02:46 PM on 07/04/2011
Read something like this line recently but can't remember where it came from: (para) "The problem with most beliefs is that they provide just enough religion to make people hate others but not enough faith for them to love their neighbors."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrfreeze
A Disciple of Nietzsche
02:24 PM on 07/04/2011
After having grown up in several highly charged and coercive religious parts of the country, I find religion incredibly intrusive and burdensome. I only wish the true intent of the founders was practised:

Keep your religion to yourself.

I couldn't care less about your prayers, your beliefs or your "moral compass." If only churches were taxed......it would give me an intense sense of pleasure.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
notdarkyet
End the Drug War.
02:17 PM on 07/04/2011
And we should all also defend the right not to believe in any religion or have religion foisted upon us in politics and the public square.
photo
thorrsman
Why should I define myself by quoting others?
06:32 PM on 07/04/2011
"...or have religion foisted upon us in politics and the public square."

In other words, you would RESTRICT free practice of religion because YOUR religious beliefs threatened by hearing the religious beliefs of others.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
notdarkyet
End the Drug War.
09:38 PM on 07/04/2011
Yep. In the public square, like graduations and games. And in politics or else they should pay taxes. You don't have a right to subject everyone to YOUR religion.