Without History, the People Perish

Dennis Prager is the center of a controversy concerning the ceremony in which Congressman-elect Ellison wishes to use the Koran instead of the Bible. Strange that Prager is the center instead of Mr. Ellison. Nevertheless, Mr. Prager, a Jew, has been the most outspoken defender of retaining the Bible at the ceremony as has been the tradition for 200 years. He claims the Bible is a symbol of the values on which the United States was founded. From all over America he has been receiving messages of tolerance and religious freedom, even from "conservatives."

My friend just pulled her kids out of public school and began homeschooling them. The experience has been challenging and rewarding for her. This past week her oldest struggled with an exam in history. Not only that: he doesn't want to do his history lessons every day. Why? To her surprise, my history-loving friend discovered that in public school, history was barely addressed, let alone treated daily. The history they did receive, in the name of the First Amendment of our federal Constitution, was stripped of most of its religious context. Since so much of history does revolve around religion, particularly Judeo-Christian religion as this world belongs to that God, the history the public school taught them was very minor.

In trying to explain the huge backlash against his stand for the Bible, Dennis Prager speculates that the populace at large does not understand his point. They never learned America's deeply religious beginning, nor the Judeo-Christian foundation for our government and laws, despite that history being documented and true. The outrage is that he is saying something these people, conservative or liberal, have never heard. Such an outcry proves the failure of their education.

Conservatives who are also Christians (or Jews) in some cases feel that the study of history is important. The Bible certainly promotes remembering God's provision and activity in the past, and praising Him for it. Stephen's sermon that got him martyred was filled with history, on which he built his case for Jesus as the Messiah. The founders of America were great historians, and specifically selected a republican form of government because of the successes and failures of the past. The Declaration of Independence (more than the first paragraph, which as a rule is the only part quoted) lists off historical grievances as justification for their revolution.

As a result of this religious emphasis on history, it is the religious who are vocally unhappy with Mr. Ellison's decision. A position belonging primarily to Christians plays right into opponents' hands. "It's a religious thing." "They can't impose their faith on me." "Government cannot legislate morality." Seemingly, the only Christian positions they will accept are those that also benefit themselves. Murder is a moral issue, yet no one claims we should take laws concerning murder off our books.

On the brighter side, Christians can make an impact. Democrat candidates intending to run for president are presenting themselves as religious, because they know what a force Christians have been in the past two presidential elections. Walmart, at least in word, bowed to the pressure of Christians who boycotted their anti-family policies. What effect can Christians and Jews and all others who understand the historical roots of this country have on the Bible at the Congressman's ceremony debate?

To God be all glory.