Recently, a Fellowship of Christian Athletes event was held at a local Florida high school under seemingly innocent and legal circumstances.  The initial news report simply described the event, in which hundreds of students gathered in the school’s bleachers in the evening to “celebrate their faith.”

However, the event has now been criticized by some who have said they were “uncomfortable” with it, despite the fact that it appears to have met all necessary restrictions and followed all rules concerning legality and Constitutionality.

Rabbi James H. Perman of the local Naples, Florida, community was a former Air Force Chaplain in Vietnam.  He was concerned with the after school FCA event:

Fields of Faith was scheduled as an extracurricular activity. Nonetheless, it was coercive in a subtle way. Coercion need not be obvious or heavy-handed when it encourages an atmosphere of conformity among teenagers. (emphasis added)

The Rabbi’s concern is apparently that those who were not part of the event might feel uncomfortable:

All of our children deserve to be comfortable in public school. It is not a favor to them; it is their right.

At least two other organizations picked up on the Rabbi’s letter.  None explicitly or outrightly condemned the event; but they “expressed their concern” at the apparent mixing of church and state, “questioned” its propriety, and feared the impact on the children who might feel out of place by not attending the late evening event.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State engaged in a spat of tense hand-wringing, concerned that the event “raises Constitutional questions:”

These evangelistic rallies bring a lot of questions to my mind. Do the kids know that an outside organization is planning this, or do they think school officials are? It could be confusing, considering some faculty members…seem to be actively planning and advocating for the event.

Would other religious and non-religious organizations also have access to the football stadium after hours? Does the school rent the space to this organization, or is it free? Would it be free to everyone?

And lastly, why does the event even need to be held at the school?

The AU’s passive criticism validates the response noted elsewhere: when a Christian event occurs on public property, critical organizations are quick to raise the “equal access” canard.

While the Rabbi’s concerns are certainly an interesting topic of discussion, Americans United demonstrates that there are no circumstances under which they would find such an event acceptable.  No matter how many rules there were–and despite the fact that the organization followed them–the AU would find something to complain about (or at least raise “concerned questions” over).  Hypersensitivity about religion in America is reaching such a fevered pitch that even things that marginally resemble religious symbols–even if that was never their intent–are generating complaints.

The only possible outcome of the AU’s “questions” and the Rabbi’s concern about student comfort would be a ban on any ideological group being associated with institutions of public education.

That is not what the Constitution envisions.

Why does a Christian in the military care?  The same logic is currently being used by those who oppose associations of faith within the military:  Any association of the military with religion is potential “establishment,” and any association of an officer with religion is grounds for “coercion” and forced “proselytizing.”  For example, a representative of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has said “it would not be permissable [sic]” for uniformed military officers to have expressions of faith on their personal vehicles–like bumper stickers or fish emblems.

Such proposals are ludicrous on their face.  If the military needs to be thusly separated from any possible association with an ideology, then the military would have to demand that its officers have no faith (or, for that matter, any other ideological belief)–a requirement which would, of course, be a violation of the Constitution in itself.

These organizations seem to have forgotten that the freedoms Americans enjoy in exercising their human liberties will naturally lead to disagreement and offense.  The response should not be to restrict liberty in order to protect another from offense.  Instead, these situations should be used to celebrate the freedoms enjoyed in this country to believe as one desires, and to exercise that faith.  These situations demonstrate our dedication to religious freedom, they do not endanger it.

For the time being, critics seem content to condemn (or “raise questions”) about any situation in which the military or the government may in some fashion be associated with a religious (most often, the Christian) faith.

American citizens should not have to justify their practice of their natural rights; critics should justify why they can’t.  And the answer should be something more than, “it makes me uncomfortable.”