I know before I write even a word of what I'm feeling led to post here that many- especially of the young- will automatically jump to the conclusion that I'm being "right wing" bigoted and fundamentalist hard-nosed.  Nothing I can say will dissuade them that this is not just another "Republican" post, ranting on about "nothing" while corporate greed and corruption, worldwide poverty and trafficking, and environmental "rape" goes unnoticed and unaddressed by the "religious right".  I can only say that I was addressing many of these "newly discovered" worldwide concerns of theirs long before many of today's advocates were born.  I, too, am deeply concerned about each of those things, and have dedicated a lifetime trying to address them, not just with words, but with meaningful action. I have tried to put my money and my sweat where my mouth is on each of these and many other such issues.  I have avoided political posturing like the plague.

However, why is it inappropriate for me to be bothered by the unplugging of the microphone for a young valedictorian, headed for the military academy, because he had dared to mention his faith as part of his life story in his graduation address.  I realize that the school system had an "unplug" policy.  I've also read their policy (Have you?) and it is designed to avoid vulgarity, personal attacks upon school officials or fellow students, anything off-color or distasteful or any rabble rousing tactics.  It is designed to encourage the speakers to highlight their life story, hopes and dreams for the future.  The ONLY possible infraction of this young man was violating the phrase "infringe upon the rights of others".  I guess that's why he was unplugged.  Nothing else in their policy fit anything he said or did.

My question: What about the valedictorian's right to talk about his life, his hopes and dreams as the school encourages?  If he does it sensitively, in kindness, not condescendingly nor gratuitously, does he not have rights to be considered, too?  When one set of rights conflict with another set of rights, are we, as a nation, at a place now where the Christian is always the one who must yield?  I realize that Christians should, at heart, be people who willingly give up their rights for the sake of others.  I've preached and practiced that for years.  BUT, even Jesus stood firm at times in the face of the Pharisaical mindset of his day.  Here's the deal.  No one seems willing to ask these days, Can non-religious people have a Pharisaical mindset that needs at times to be firmly confronted?  I say "Yes!".  The prideful arrogance of the FFRF (Freedom from Religion Foundation) is modern-day Pharisaism at its worst- prideful, arrogant  obsession regarding one's view of God.  If Christians have that kind of attitude, their microphones need to be turned off.  But, if Christians are simply sharing life and hopes and dreams and that's impossible to do without mentioning Jesus- and, if the militant FFRF is threatening to "remove schools from the synagogue" unless they turn off the microphone, I think there comes a time to leave the microphone on.  The school would NOT have been in violation of any mandates, including their own policy, had they simply let the young man be heard.  I'm weary of hearing of schools running scared and "throwing the baby out with the bath water" in the name of "playing it safe."  I don't want my grandkids to be always having to second-guess their words when Jesus comes to mind.

Maybe I want too much.  Maybe I just need to help get my grandkids ready to live in a far, far different country that the one in which I grew up.  And I'm working on that, too.  But I will never encourage them to be ashamed of Jesus.  I will encourage them to be kind, gracious, loving.  But never ashamed.  If that has become the criteria for being a good "Christian" in today's America, then I guess the microphone will be pulled on many generations in the Calvin family in the future.  And that makes me sad.  Just sayin'!  Not mad- just sad.