No – we do not need another Christian law school. At least not for the reasons given.
Louisiana College announced August 16 a plan to establish the Judge Paul Pressler School of Law. Paul Pressler is one of the two main architects – and puppet masters – behind the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. He is not on my Christmas card list.
Joe Aguillard president of Louisiana College explained, “I have been asked over and over again, ‘Why a law school?’… Why a Christian law school?” A fair question. And the answer deserves fair consideration. From the Baptist Press article by Kelly Boggs:
While Aguillard quoted such founding fathers of the nation as George Washington, John Adams and John Jay to answer the question, U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R.-Quitman, La., underscored the need in practical terms.
Judiciary action is causing the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandants to be removed from many of the nation’s schools “and in their place we are putting metal detectors –- to keep our children from killing each other,” Alexander said.
“‘Are we in trouble?’ one might ask,” Alexander said. “I fear the answer is yes. Thank you, Dr. Aguillard, for recognizing the need….”
To address judicial activism and the erosion of religious liberty, Aguillard said the Pressler School of Law will produce attorneys who will be Christian advocates in everyday life and practice as well as the realm of politics.
Consider also this quote from the Associated Baptist Press article by Greg Warner:
Aguillard said the law school — which would be the school’s first doctoral program — will teach “a biblical worldview”…
“Founding a law school is a monumental undertaking but one that we are working on diligently,” Aguillard said in a press release. “Opening a conservative, Christian law school will fill a niche in the state of Louisiana, and also the nation.”
And especially from a Baton Rouge Advocate report by Jordan Blum:
Aguillard said the law school will “unashamedly embrace” the nation’s “biblical roots” but still prepare graduates to pass the bar exam and practice law in Louisiana or nationwide. “We teach our students to have a passion to change the world in the name of Christ,” he said.
Some anti-Christian courts have improperly interpreted the U.S. Constitution on issues involving religious liberties and family values, Aguillard said.
There you have it. The religious liberties of Christians are under attack. Lord’s Prayer and Ten Commandments being taken out of schools. We are in trouble and need a Christian law school. Excuse me – a conservative Christian law school that teaches a “biblical worldview”. (I have some thoughts about that also.) And will embrace our nation’s “biblical roots”. Were this not Louisiana I would swear I can hear someone humming “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” in the background.
Look – I know that sometimes Christians do not get a fair shake in the name of “separation of church and state”. Occasional excesses by overzealous teachers and administrators. Susie cannot take her Bible to school or keep it on her desk. Johnny cannot mention God or Jesus during show and tell. But can one really defend sweeping generalizations about “judicial activism and the erosion of religious liberty”? Certainly not if the examples are taking the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments out of schools. That is just silly. Yes – silly. And if we know anything about Paul Pressler (and his political ideology and connections), about the people now in charge of the Louisiana Baptist Convention, it is fair to surmise that this move represents the concerns of the Religious Right. Those who believe the United States is somehow a Christian nation. That the Christian faith deserves special protection and consideration within the American political sphere.
Christians have the same political rights and religious liberties as everyone else. No less. But no more. And to cite the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments as examples of “erosion of religious liberty” is unacceptable. The Lord’s Prayer is a specifically Christian prayer. Where does that put Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, and so on students? (I know that some people were quite exercised when a Hindu person delivered the opening prayer before a session of Congress. Blasphemy! Sacrilege! What’s next – child sacrifice and Ba`al worship?!? The conviction being expressed openly that this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles and that non-Christians have no business in this sort of political inclusion.)
There are several things these sorts of Christian law advocates fail to consider. Or that they do consider but get it wrong.
- As mentioned above – what they call “religious liberty” too often means special privilege and status for the Christian faith. Sorry – but that is not part of the Constitution. And not part of what makes America so great. No matter the historical revisionism or arguments.
- Using the Ten Commandments to promote a general “acknowledgment of God” is a terrible mistake. Yahweh is not some generic concept of deity but is a specific and particular God rooted in story and history. Do we really want to promote the idea of some general God of philosophy? A God who is only God but not Yahweh? (But I suspect Ten Commandment advocates know that. What they are promoting is not God. What they are really promoting is Christianity.)
- Nor can one promote public display of the Ten Commandments in order to elevate public morality. The first four commandments have specifically to do with God. These are more than just good moral principles. These commandments are part of a covenant relationship between a specific people and a specific God.
- Which version of the Ten Commandments? Catholics and Protestants list them slightly differently. Once again – we are not just promoting Christianity but Protestant Christianity. All religions are equal – but ours is more equal than everybody else’s?
- I cannot stand how such elevation of the Ten Commandments yanks them out of the larger Sinai covenant. What about Exodus 21 through 24? What sound biblical-theological-exegetical rationale is there to treat them differently and separately? (I know there is an answer to that. I know the difference between apodictic and casuistic law. Would you like me to quote Hammurapi’s Code in the original Old Babylonian? Shumma awilum… iddak.)
- And what to me is the biggest objection of all – why do some Christians believe so strongly that we need not just the cooperation but the assistance of the political system to advance the mission of the Christian church?!?
We do not need another Christian law school. Especially not for the usual tiresome reasons given by Aguillard and Alexander. Look – I lived in Great Britain and attended British public school where we had religious services at least twice a week. Christian hymns. Prayers. Bible readings. Even sermons. And yet the culture in British school was often cruel and abusive.
What if this were Utah? Would we be expected to voice Latter Day Saint prayers? How would the above Baptists feel if the tables were turned? And who will voice these prayers? Would Jewish teachers be permitted – or worse required – to voice the Lord’s Prayer?
See also -
Ethics Daily article by Brian Kaylor (disappointing – too much guilt-by-association with all the space devoted to Pressler and Regent College… not enough to critiquing the proposed law school and its ideological-political implications)
Associated Press article at law.com
Reference to news item by Melissa Rogers (professor of religion and public policy)
Reference to news item in Baton Rouge Advocate at Adjunct Law Prof Blog
