There’s a speech I give today on college campuses. It generally provokes a lot of interest because it raises an extremely controversial question: Does Jesus belong on a college campus?  Should we be allowed to talk candidly about a religious figure in the classroom or even at a special seminar for that matter?

Here are the points I put forth, opening myself up to question and debate:

1) Jesus is not merely a religious figure, but an historical figure:

Although the New Testament itself can certainly be defended as an extremely accurate collection of historical documents and eyewitness accounts, it may be of interest to people that Jesus was also mentioned by other ancient historians, such as, the Roman writer, Tacitus and the Jewish writer, Josephus, whom we know was not a convert to Christianity.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.  He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.  He was the Christ.  And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.  And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Josephus
William Whiston translation 379 Antiquities book 18 Chapter 3 pg 379

NOTE: Although much controversy surrounds this passage, its textual tradition is as sturdy as anything else we accept from Josephus and historians turn to Josephus all the time for their understanding of the ancient world.

Although some try to portray this as a Christian interpolation, most scholars accept most of it and some accept all of it.  There is no reason not to accept the entire writing and I defend this in my book, I’d Like To Believe In Jesus, But...

In any event, the history of Jesus does not ride upon this one narrative. We can also look to The Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosta, The Acts of Pilate, Thallas, and (as mentioned above) Tacitus.  There is also an additional passage in Josephus (a shorter one) about Jesus that nobody questions. For now, suffices to say that Jesus is definitely a figure of history and the very notion that an institution of higher learning would censor discussion about a person of history is rather bizarre.

2) Jesus is talked about by professors all the time anyway.

Oh sure. They talk about him in a negative way, but they do talk about him. In a typical Religious Studies class, the professor says on orientation day, “In this class we will not critique religions. We will merely study what they teach and allow them to speak for themselves.”

What he means is that he is not going to critique any religion but Christianity.

The professor continues. “In this class we are going to learn to respect all religions.”

What he means is that you are going to learn to respect all religions accept Christianity. On the day you study Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or even some religion about aliens being hatched from space pods, you will learn about how beautiful the religion is.  On the day you study Christianity, you will learn that the Bible is a chauvinistic book and a racist book. It promotes genocide and even rape. The Bible is also full of contradictions.  Oh yes, and the Bible has been rewritten and mistranslated. If any Christian dares to argue with the professor and defend the gospel, he’ll hear, “Whoa…Buddy. Back off…Separation between church and state. You’re not allowed to preach in here.” Funny how this separation never cuts both ways. People can say any vile thing they want about Christianity, but we Christians dare not defend ourselves.  See how it works?

My point: If professors feel the campus is an inappropriate place to mention Jesus, then maybe they should stop talking about him But the notion that our constitution forbids religious discussion unless Christianity is being criticized, smells like an open jar of pickled herring on a hot windy day.

3)  Speaking of  “Separation between church and state,” the phrase is found no where  in the constitution and I mean, no where!

The First Amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

That’s it!  That one line is what all the bugaboo is about!  How then, did the myth of separation between church and state raise its ugly head?

It actually began in the year 1947 in a court case called Everson VS the Board of Education. The court said: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”  (Everson VR Board of Education 330 US 1,18 1947)

They were quoting Thomas Jefferson, but quoting him out of context:

Jefferson used the phrase in a letter he wrote to the Baptist Churches of Danbury, Connecticut who were concerned that the federal constitution might begin to limit the rights of the church.

The fear was this: If the government was granting religious freedom, maybe they could someday take away religious freedom. The Danbury Baptists were asking Jefferson to affirm that religious rights were inalienable rights before God, not privileges which the state invented. Jefferson agreed with them and in a letter wrote:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter that lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state. “
Thomas Jefferson, Jan 2, 1802

Get that? Jefferson is using the phrase separation to agree with the Danbury Baptists that they are free before God to practice their religion as they see fit.

When our country was founded, our fathers were determined to avoid the way of Europe. In Europe, different countries declared their own brand of Christianity. Italy was Catholic. England was (obviously) Church of England. Germany, for the most part, was Lutheran and Switzerland was Reformed. One risked death to break from the religion of his country. In America, it would be different. There would be no mandatory state church. People could participate in any Christian denomination they wished or chose to not be religious at all.

This did not mean that we were not allowed to mention the Bible at school or pray in public. All of our colleges were Bible colleges in those days. Harvard was actually started by the Puritans as a school for prophets.

Conclusion: Today, secular activists,while claiming they are only looking out for their own rights, ignore the fact that their right to be unreligious has NEVER EVER been infringed upon in the history of our great nation. Indeed, it is they who are systematically eroding the rights of Christians and they are doing it with historical revision.

Jesus always has and always will belong on the college campus.

 
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.