Thursday, December 18, 2008
Political Mayhem Thursday: Church and State
First off, the Osler/Bates foosball challenge went great. We raised $300 for Mission Waco, and despite my weaknesses we ended up with a record of 26-4. If you were one of those four teams, feel free to gloat in the comments section.
Now for the mayhem. Today's topic is the relationship between church and state. As I see it there are two important and distinct questions to discuss. Feel free to address one or both (I realize that the first one might be better suited to the lawyers and law students out there).
1) Does the Constitution require that Church and State remain separate?
2) Regardless of what the Constitution requires, is it a good idea to keep
church and state separate as a matter of policy? Keeping them separate would
prevent prayer in schools and any public funding of religious organizations
or their work.
Comments:
<< Home
Door #2:
I've been thinking that there should be a difference between separation of and separation from.
The current idea, similar to what you've expressed, is that separation means separation from. In other words, no prayer in school. That interpretation seems based on fear and, understandably, a respect for the demons of hegemony, cloaked though they might be in ... whatever robes one fears.
But what if we looked at the concept of separation as an opportunity for inclusion? What if, in our desire to keep from turning into, say, the Taliban, we saw this as an opportunity to leave the practice of religion at home but the knowledge of religions in schools?
Instead of no prayer, for example, we could see this as an opportunity to learn about all prayers. Instead of no funding, it could result in all types of educational funding.
What an opportunity to learn about the cultures and peoples of ... our own neighborhoods ... and the world. I wish that had been the way when my daughter was in school.
I choose both/and.
(... and, no, I'm not sitting cross-legged and singing Kumbaya ... but thanks for asking)
I've been thinking that there should be a difference between separation of and separation from.
The current idea, similar to what you've expressed, is that separation means separation from. In other words, no prayer in school. That interpretation seems based on fear and, understandably, a respect for the demons of hegemony, cloaked though they might be in ... whatever robes one fears.
But what if we looked at the concept of separation as an opportunity for inclusion? What if, in our desire to keep from turning into, say, the Taliban, we saw this as an opportunity to leave the practice of religion at home but the knowledge of religions in schools?
Instead of no prayer, for example, we could see this as an opportunity to learn about all prayers. Instead of no funding, it could result in all types of educational funding.
What an opportunity to learn about the cultures and peoples of ... our own neighborhoods ... and the world. I wish that had been the way when my daughter was in school.
I choose both/and.
(... and, no, I'm not sitting cross-legged and singing Kumbaya ... but thanks for asking)
I seldom chime in on Political Mayhem Thursday, but fresh off my bout with foosball elbow, I must say the following: when governments get into any aspect of religion, it is always a failure.
I have lived in countries with state religion, namely Spain, and the government used it as an arm against the people to repress and control them. The result is that less that 10% of all Spaniards profess any kind of religion at all. The Catholic Church, because it supported Franco and his dictatorship, has fallen on extremely hard times and many people--most people--don't want to have anything to do with it or them.
Keeping government out of religion actually keeps religion freer and more real. When your prayers are dictated by law, faith goes haywire. I am for a seperation of and a seperation from. Don't go down this slippery slope. It's a very bad idea.
Teach your children about religion at home and in your respective places of worship. If you must have it in school, go to your own parochial school--whatever flavor you choose, but in the end it will be your choice, not the governments. You don't want the government deciding your religion for you. Trust me on this one. I know.
I have lived in countries with state religion, namely Spain, and the government used it as an arm against the people to repress and control them. The result is that less that 10% of all Spaniards profess any kind of religion at all. The Catholic Church, because it supported Franco and his dictatorship, has fallen on extremely hard times and many people--most people--don't want to have anything to do with it or them.
Keeping government out of religion actually keeps religion freer and more real. When your prayers are dictated by law, faith goes haywire. I am for a seperation of and a seperation from. Don't go down this slippery slope. It's a very bad idea.
Teach your children about religion at home and in your respective places of worship. If you must have it in school, go to your own parochial school--whatever flavor you choose, but in the end it will be your choice, not the governments. You don't want the government deciding your religion for you. Trust me on this one. I know.
I am all for separation of and from. But I do think there is a place to teach about all the major world religions, perhaps a good agnostic could be found to teach the class. Some type of comparative religion class.
Looking back I wonder how our high school was able to offer an FCA program. I participated and learned a lot, and as I recall it was non-denominational, but was it really appropriate? I also had a problem with 'team' prayer before a sporting event. There is a lot of peer pressure and fear of being an outcast for non-participation. It is easier to stand on the edge of the circle and appear to participate than to walk away as a 16 year old.
On a similar note, I heard on NPR yesterday that President Bush may sign something before leaving office that allows doctors, nurses, pharmacists and even fringe medical personal (people who process medical claims) to opt out of providing services for religious reasons. This goes beyond birth control and abortion and could encompass AIDs testing and such. I have a huge problem with this and the government sticking its nose into the religious/morality issues of medical professionals. These are personal issues that people need to wrestle with when they are choosing and pursuing a career. Our medical systems are already screwed up and this will make it worse.
Looking back I wonder how our high school was able to offer an FCA program. I participated and learned a lot, and as I recall it was non-denominational, but was it really appropriate? I also had a problem with 'team' prayer before a sporting event. There is a lot of peer pressure and fear of being an outcast for non-participation. It is easier to stand on the edge of the circle and appear to participate than to walk away as a 16 year old.
On a similar note, I heard on NPR yesterday that President Bush may sign something before leaving office that allows doctors, nurses, pharmacists and even fringe medical personal (people who process medical claims) to opt out of providing services for religious reasons. This goes beyond birth control and abortion and could encompass AIDs testing and such. I have a huge problem with this and the government sticking its nose into the religious/morality issues of medical professionals. These are personal issues that people need to wrestle with when they are choosing and pursuing a career. Our medical systems are already screwed up and this will make it worse.
The Constitution today, depending on what the men in black say, may or may not enshrine "separation of church and state."
However, prior to incorporation, the Constitution clearly allowed a lot of latitude for local governments to be quite involved in religion.
Several states had ESTABLISHED religions for decades after the ratification of the Constitution (the last state to "disestablish" was Massachusetts in the 1830s).
The Bill of Rights, which protected individuals and sometimes states from the power of the feds, offered no advice to states or municipalities regarding religious displays on public property or most of the other things we regularly argue about now.
No one back in the 18th or 19th century would have ever expected a federal court to tell a city or state government what they could display on their community property. That would have been a local decision.
But, really, who cares about all that?
That gets us into a really boring "original intent" argument.
The much more interesting question is whether separation is a good idea.
Remember, we live in America. We can do whatever we decide to do corporately through constitutional means. Do we want separation?
I would say not totally. We spend way too much time worrying about offending atheists and extrapolating theoretical principles well beyond their value in a practical world.
Let common sense be your guide.
For example, who is the Ten Commandments hurting? What damage does a nativity on the courthouse square do? Weigh that against the benefit of acknowledging religion as a helpful cornerstone to the society we all want. As GW said, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
The text of the First Amendment provides two worthy governing guidelines:
1. No establishment of a national religion.
2. Allow citizens to exercise their religion freely.
From there, let common sense be your guide.
However, prior to incorporation, the Constitution clearly allowed a lot of latitude for local governments to be quite involved in religion.
Several states had ESTABLISHED religions for decades after the ratification of the Constitution (the last state to "disestablish" was Massachusetts in the 1830s).
The Bill of Rights, which protected individuals and sometimes states from the power of the feds, offered no advice to states or municipalities regarding religious displays on public property or most of the other things we regularly argue about now.
No one back in the 18th or 19th century would have ever expected a federal court to tell a city or state government what they could display on their community property. That would have been a local decision.
But, really, who cares about all that?
That gets us into a really boring "original intent" argument.
The much more interesting question is whether separation is a good idea.
Remember, we live in America. We can do whatever we decide to do corporately through constitutional means. Do we want separation?
I would say not totally. We spend way too much time worrying about offending atheists and extrapolating theoretical principles well beyond their value in a practical world.
Let common sense be your guide.
For example, who is the Ten Commandments hurting? What damage does a nativity on the courthouse square do? Weigh that against the benefit of acknowledging religion as a helpful cornerstone to the society we all want. As GW said, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
The text of the First Amendment provides two worthy governing guidelines:
1. No establishment of a national religion.
2. Allow citizens to exercise their religion freely.
From there, let common sense be your guide.
The Constitution does not create any "separation" between church and state-- exactly the opposite. It allows free exercise of religion, and that means for the government, too, unless it declares a state religion. This is a Christian nation, always was, and the government can and must reflect that reality.
# posted by 
: 12:04 PM
: 12:04 PM
Wow . . . a lot of interesting and provocative ideas here.
I am for separation OF, definitely, and mostly separation FROM. I see no problem with a World Religions class in public schools--and such classes have been allowed in some states--IF it's truly taught that way, is completely inclusive and doesn't advocate one religion over another. But it IS a slippery slope, as Medievalist says.
My own school experience has led me firmly to favor separation OF. I grew up in rural NC and I remember, for example, having to go to an assembly at which my 7th-grade math teacher's gospel choir was the featured act, complete with prayers. In high school, there was a Christian anti-drug speaker (professing as much Christianity as anti-drug message, and leading a prayer in assembly). I'm sure there was an FCA.
And of course there were the prayers before football games, and at graduation . . .at my public school.
It always made me uncomfortable, because religion was something of a fraught issue for me anyway. Growing up in the Bible Belt, I always felt as though there was plenty of pressure, outside of school, to be religious and even to be religious in a very specific way (i.e. having the experience of "being saved," and publicly stating you were "born again").
So I didn't appreciate what felt like the pressure to accept religion unquestioningly, in front of other people, when it was forced on you at school in instances like the ones I described. And I'm Christian: I can only imagine what it would've felt like for a Jewish or Muslim student.
Religious expression and belief, and the ability to question received beliefs, are private things and should be left private.
I am for separation OF, definitely, and mostly separation FROM. I see no problem with a World Religions class in public schools--and such classes have been allowed in some states--IF it's truly taught that way, is completely inclusive and doesn't advocate one religion over another. But it IS a slippery slope, as Medievalist says.
My own school experience has led me firmly to favor separation OF. I grew up in rural NC and I remember, for example, having to go to an assembly at which my 7th-grade math teacher's gospel choir was the featured act, complete with prayers. In high school, there was a Christian anti-drug speaker (professing as much Christianity as anti-drug message, and leading a prayer in assembly). I'm sure there was an FCA.
And of course there were the prayers before football games, and at graduation . . .at my public school.
It always made me uncomfortable, because religion was something of a fraught issue for me anyway. Growing up in the Bible Belt, I always felt as though there was plenty of pressure, outside of school, to be religious and even to be religious in a very specific way (i.e. having the experience of "being saved," and publicly stating you were "born again").
So I didn't appreciate what felt like the pressure to accept religion unquestioningly, in front of other people, when it was forced on you at school in instances like the ones I described. And I'm Christian: I can only imagine what it would've felt like for a Jewish or Muslim student.
Religious expression and belief, and the ability to question received beliefs, are private things and should be left private.
# posted by : 1:49 PM
: 1:49 PM
I'm with Swissgirl. I went to public school in South Carolina and got more religion there than I did in church - from students, from teachers, and from coaches - and it was not a pleasant experience at all. It's one thing to teach me how to figure out an algebra problem. It's something else entirely to tell me how I should pray, to whom I should pray, and what I should believe. That's my priest's job - not my public schoolteacher's.
Bottom line - if you're looking for a religious experience, go to church or go to private school. Government is there to serve all the people, not just a particular faction of it.
Interestingly enough, I went to private religious schools for my undergraduate and law degrees, and I never felt pressured or imposed upon with respect to religion at those places. I've always thought it was neat that at the schools where there is an official religious affiliation, I've always felt more welcomed than I was in public school. Haven't figured that one out yet...
Bottom line - if you're looking for a religious experience, go to church or go to private school. Government is there to serve all the people, not just a particular faction of it.
Interestingly enough, I went to private religious schools for my undergraduate and law degrees, and I never felt pressured or imposed upon with respect to religion at those places. I've always thought it was neat that at the schools where there is an official religious affiliation, I've always felt more welcomed than I was in public school. Haven't figured that one out yet...
# posted by : 2:09 PM
: 2:09 PM
I agree with Waco Farmer.
And I'd add that just as atheists and agnostics don't want their children force-fed religion at school, I don't want my children force-fed atheism or agnosticism.
I think that's the whole point of the First Amendment.
We're free to believe, the most fundamental freedom there is. What's wrong with exploring the beliefs of other people?
I went to Brigham Young University (yes the big Mormon university), and I took an archeology course. Guess what we studied. The theory of evolution! Now I know all about how many people believe how we got here.
But I still don't believe the theory of evolution.
When we ban ideas whether they be about religion or atheism how can we know what to believe?
And if both atheists who want all traces of religion extracted from government and the religious who want religion integrated completely into government were honest, they think the other side is stupid and should just shut up. But I don't think that's what the Founders wanted.
People just need to stop being afraid of ideas. Now that doesn't mean that we have to believe them. In fact, we should reject false ideas. But we should also cling to the Truth. And how can we know the Truth unless we're exposed to it?
And I'd add that just as atheists and agnostics don't want their children force-fed religion at school, I don't want my children force-fed atheism or agnosticism.
I think that's the whole point of the First Amendment.
We're free to believe, the most fundamental freedom there is. What's wrong with exploring the beliefs of other people?
I went to Brigham Young University (yes the big Mormon university), and I took an archeology course. Guess what we studied. The theory of evolution! Now I know all about how many people believe how we got here.
But I still don't believe the theory of evolution.
When we ban ideas whether they be about religion or atheism how can we know what to believe?
And if both atheists who want all traces of religion extracted from government and the religious who want religion integrated completely into government were honest, they think the other side is stupid and should just shut up. But I don't think that's what the Founders wanted.
People just need to stop being afraid of ideas. Now that doesn't mean that we have to believe them. In fact, we should reject false ideas. But we should also cling to the Truth. And how can we know the Truth unless we're exposed to it?
Prof,
I didn't think of FCA as a school function, but it was held after hours in a public school. My parents didn't object ot my exploration of religion and the Bible and it definitely was multi-denominational There certainly was and always is the opening for abuse of what it was intended to be. Fortunately the Ritter's were not prone to that, and I would bet that the school system had all types of controls and restrictions that we did not know about.
I didn't think of FCA as a school function, but it was held after hours in a public school. My parents didn't object ot my exploration of religion and the Bible and it definitely was multi-denominational There certainly was and always is the opening for abuse of what it was intended to be. Fortunately the Ritter's were not prone to that, and I would bet that the school system had all types of controls and restrictions that we did not know about.
I seem to recall Guinn teaching a S.Ct. case that says things like FCA (and I have no idea what that is) can be held after hours at a public school provided the school allows any and all other types of religious organizations to use the property for a similar purpose. So, FCA can have its meeting so long as the Hindu Club or Muslim Association can also hold meetings upon request. Someone cite the case please. Forgive me Guinn...and stop shaking that finger at me!
# posted by : 2:56 PM
: 2:56 PM
FCA was the Fellowship of Christian Athletes that Christine and I were both members of at our high school. The President was Pam Stewart. She was an excellent leader and this led to a great increase in membership among boys.
Looking at "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" most folks seem to agree that State needs to keep out of Church business, including no State-sanctioned Church, and that this is a good idea.
It is when we get to keeping the Church out of State that the issue gets murky, especially because so many people seem to slip into thinking that the question is whether "my Church" must (or should) be kept out of State business. Take Craig's argument, for example. He frames it as 'religion' vs. atheists and agnostics, implicitly lumping all 'religious' people into a single team. But many of the Supreme Court cases in this area have been fights among people of different faiths. For example, the banning of official school prayer under Engel v. Vitale arose from opposition by Jewish organizations (among others). It was a Mormon and a Catholic family that successfully challenged student-led prayers before high school football games.
A Waco Farmer makes the same mistake when he says "We spend way too much time worrying about offending atheists".
What damage does a nativity on the courthouse square do? It says to every citizen whose faith (or lack thereof) does not involve the nativity "your beliefs aren't as valid, or important, as those with political power here." Unless, of course, *all* faiths are represented -- and that makes for an impractically crowded square. There is a big difference between a secular State and an 'atheist' State. A secular State simply does its best to keep out of the religious fray.
To those, like our Anonymous 'Christian nation' promoter here, I say "what branch of Christianity, exactly?" After all, if we're going to label ourselves as a nation, it doesn't do to be wishy washy. Protestant or Catholic? (I can guess, so:) Evangelical, Adventist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Mormon, or something else? When there are doctrinal disagreements over which prayers, exactly, are appropriate for a 'Christian nation', who decides? If your particular brand isn't on top, are you fine with State-supported promotion of doctrines that your Church opposes?
It is when we get to keeping the Church out of State that the issue gets murky, especially because so many people seem to slip into thinking that the question is whether "my Church" must (or should) be kept out of State business. Take Craig's argument, for example. He frames it as 'religion' vs. atheists and agnostics, implicitly lumping all 'religious' people into a single team. But many of the Supreme Court cases in this area have been fights among people of different faiths. For example, the banning of official school prayer under Engel v. Vitale arose from opposition by Jewish organizations (among others). It was a Mormon and a Catholic family that successfully challenged student-led prayers before high school football games.
A Waco Farmer makes the same mistake when he says "We spend way too much time worrying about offending atheists".
What damage does a nativity on the courthouse square do? It says to every citizen whose faith (or lack thereof) does not involve the nativity "your beliefs aren't as valid, or important, as those with political power here." Unless, of course, *all* faiths are represented -- and that makes for an impractically crowded square. There is a big difference between a secular State and an 'atheist' State. A secular State simply does its best to keep out of the religious fray.
To those, like our Anonymous 'Christian nation' promoter here, I say "what branch of Christianity, exactly?" After all, if we're going to label ourselves as a nation, it doesn't do to be wishy washy. Protestant or Catholic? (I can guess, so:) Evangelical, Adventist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Mormon, or something else? When there are doctrinal disagreements over which prayers, exactly, are appropriate for a 'Christian nation', who decides? If your particular brand isn't on top, are you fine with State-supported promotion of doctrines that your Church opposes?
Evan Simpson:
You avoid my second challenge.
You have identified the harm of the nativity in a public place: making non-Christians aware that they are a religious minority in a particular community. Presumably, this is not obnoxious to all non-Christians. Presumably, there are non-Christians who don't take offense at Christian symbolism.
But for those who are offended, the question becomes whether this harm outweighs the advantages of acknowledging (or even promoting) a symbol of hope with which a majority of the community identifies.
As for "all faiths" being represented, again, I say let common sense be your guide.
Who doesn't enjoy a handsome menorah?
You avoid my second challenge.
You have identified the harm of the nativity in a public place: making non-Christians aware that they are a religious minority in a particular community. Presumably, this is not obnoxious to all non-Christians. Presumably, there are non-Christians who don't take offense at Christian symbolism.
But for those who are offended, the question becomes whether this harm outweighs the advantages of acknowledging (or even promoting) a symbol of hope with which a majority of the community identifies.
As for "all faiths" being represented, again, I say let common sense be your guide.
Who doesn't enjoy a handsome menorah?
To your post, Craig, and perhaps also to Waco Farmer's: I certainly advocate people learning about other religions, but in a non-coercive way. Seeing symbols of Christianity in places that are for ALL Americans, and having a particular religion included in schools that are for ALL Americans, seems to me coercive even if in a subtle way.
For me, what it comes down to is this: unless my understanding of US history is too simplistic, this country was founded by people fleeing religions oppression and looking for religious freedom. Period.
And then for that religion to become sanctioned and displayed in places paid for and supported by ALL Americans seems completely antithetical to what this country is all about.
That's our identity. That's what we are about: freedom from the tyranny of one religion.
(I've never understood why we have In God We Trust on our money, or how they can get away with saying a prayer before the Virginia General Assembly opens every day . . . and so on.)
For me, what it comes down to is this: unless my understanding of US history is too simplistic, this country was founded by people fleeing religions oppression and looking for religious freedom. Period.
And then for that religion to become sanctioned and displayed in places paid for and supported by ALL Americans seems completely antithetical to what this country is all about.
That's our identity. That's what we are about: freedom from the tyranny of one religion.
(I've never understood why we have In God We Trust on our money, or how they can get away with saying a prayer before the Virginia General Assembly opens every day . . . and so on.)
# posted by : 4:55 PM
: 4:55 PM
Swiss Girl:
I would not call your understanding of the history of religion in America simplistic (in fact, it is gaining ground as a near-consensus view), but I would say it differs from my understanding.
Not to be too self-referential, but the first part of my first post is a pretty good primer on how I see the founding as a version of "religious federalism." No national religion. No religious tests to hold federal office. A secular government. On the other hand, the locals really had the ability to do whatever made sense to them.
But even on the national level there have always been contradictions. The first House of Representatives elected a Presbyterian minister as its speaker. One of the first pieces of legislation they passed was to create a Chaplain of the House to open their meetings in prayer as well as perform other pastoral services.
It has always been very complicated.
I would not call your understanding of the history of religion in America simplistic (in fact, it is gaining ground as a near-consensus view), but I would say it differs from my understanding.
Not to be too self-referential, but the first part of my first post is a pretty good primer on how I see the founding as a version of "religious federalism." No national religion. No religious tests to hold federal office. A secular government. On the other hand, the locals really had the ability to do whatever made sense to them.
But even on the national level there have always been contradictions. The first House of Representatives elected a Presbyterian minister as its speaker. One of the first pieces of legislation they passed was to create a Chaplain of the House to open their meetings in prayer as well as perform other pastoral services.
It has always been very complicated.
Has it ever really been that complicated? Hasn't the court just made it complicated?
I mean, is there anyone here that seriously equates school prayer with the establishment of religion by the government? I know the Supreme Court has created tortured theories about the matter but most rely on people having hurt feelings. And last time I checked "hurt feelings" don't rise to the level of a constitutional problem.
I mean, the historical context is pretty clear. We didn't want to be like England. We didn't want a national religion. We didn't want a state-run/state-affiliated church. And we have never have one. And no amount of school prayer is going to change that.
At the same time, if you made me vote whether or not we should have prayer in schools, before football games, or whatever I'm probably going to vote against it because I think that the more government is involved in religion the more screwed up religion will be.
I mean, is there anyone here that seriously equates school prayer with the establishment of religion by the government? I know the Supreme Court has created tortured theories about the matter but most rely on people having hurt feelings. And last time I checked "hurt feelings" don't rise to the level of a constitutional problem.
I mean, the historical context is pretty clear. We didn't want to be like England. We didn't want a national religion. We didn't want a state-run/state-affiliated church. And we have never have one. And no amount of school prayer is going to change that.
At the same time, if you made me vote whether or not we should have prayer in schools, before football games, or whatever I'm probably going to vote against it because I think that the more government is involved in religion the more screwed up religion will be.
# posted by : 6:14 PM
: 6:14 PM
I just spent five long hours with three sugared up kids under five making cookies, eating frosting, making forts, playing scary dinosaur zoo, chasing cars watching cartoons and about a hundred other manic activities. My brain no longer works.
Prof ~ I never knew that so many guys thought Pam Stewart was HOT. I'm not sure she realized that was the sentiment of the day.
RRL said:
is there anyone here that seriously equates school prayer with the establishment of religion by the government?
No I don't but to me school prayer or group prayer at school is a question of appropriateness. If I attend a private school with religious affiliations I would expect there to be some form of prayer and at the very least education relating to the specific religious beliefs. In fact I might find it odd if this were not the case. But when I attend a publicly funded school I expect some separation as I am not funding the public school with my tax dollars to provide religious education or place students in uncomfortable situations because their religious views are different than the majority.
ok it's late - I'm not making sense anymore (or typing worth a $^%& at this point)
RRL said:
is there anyone here that seriously equates school prayer with the establishment of religion by the government?
No I don't but to me school prayer or group prayer at school is a question of appropriateness. If I attend a private school with religious affiliations I would expect there to be some form of prayer and at the very least education relating to the specific religious beliefs. In fact I might find it odd if this were not the case. But when I attend a publicly funded school I expect some separation as I am not funding the public school with my tax dollars to provide religious education or place students in uncomfortable situations because their religious views are different than the majority.
ok it's late - I'm not making sense anymore (or typing worth a $^%& at this point)
Justice Hugo Black, in Engle v. Vitale: the union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion.
As for the answers, (1) is the necessary implication of the free exercise and establishment clauses acting in unison. TJ know it, you know it, and I know it.
(2) Yes. To both cases.
The marriage of state and church only serves to legitimize the views of said church, and as I am currently unaware of any religion that does not include some sort of ethical or political beliefs, those ethical and political beliefs are then enshrined as the "correct" ones, in direct contradiction to the principles of a free and open democracy. You're free to disagree with men, but not with gods.
In regards to A Waco Farmer, I think that it's all fine as long as the shoe isn't on your foot, so to speak. Consider the recent cases of the Washington state capitol, where non-atheists were so offended by an atheist sign alongside a nativity display that they stole it. The same thing happened with a similar sign in Illinois, and it's being replaced with a sign that says, "Thou shalt not steal."
The predictable outrage by such hams as Billy O'Reilly about the Washington sign was right one cue as well. Now, I don't think that FFRF should go around placing signs that openly mock religion on state grounds... and neither do I think that the government ought to be in the business of putting up menorahs, Christmas trees, or Nativity scenes.
It's not that I'm offended, but that principles have to be principled. Believe it or not, those of us who don't believe in things like the Nativity don't like seeing constant reminders that we're politically disenfranchised in this country. Just like those people that do believe in the Nativity don't like seeing signs that say that religion is superstition.
So, rather than have the government get involved with this at all, a simple, one-size-fits all standard can apply: don't do it. It's not necessary to advance any government interest.
As for the answers, (1) is the necessary implication of the free exercise and establishment clauses acting in unison. TJ know it, you know it, and I know it.
(2) Yes. To both cases.
The marriage of state and church only serves to legitimize the views of said church, and as I am currently unaware of any religion that does not include some sort of ethical or political beliefs, those ethical and political beliefs are then enshrined as the "correct" ones, in direct contradiction to the principles of a free and open democracy. You're free to disagree with men, but not with gods.
In regards to A Waco Farmer, I think that it's all fine as long as the shoe isn't on your foot, so to speak. Consider the recent cases of the Washington state capitol, where non-atheists were so offended by an atheist sign alongside a nativity display that they stole it. The same thing happened with a similar sign in Illinois, and it's being replaced with a sign that says, "Thou shalt not steal."
The predictable outrage by such hams as Billy O'Reilly about the Washington sign was right one cue as well. Now, I don't think that FFRF should go around placing signs that openly mock religion on state grounds... and neither do I think that the government ought to be in the business of putting up menorahs, Christmas trees, or Nativity scenes.
It's not that I'm offended, but that principles have to be principled. Believe it or not, those of us who don't believe in things like the Nativity don't like seeing constant reminders that we're politically disenfranchised in this country. Just like those people that do believe in the Nativity don't like seeing signs that say that religion is superstition.
So, rather than have the government get involved with this at all, a simple, one-size-fits all standard can apply: don't do it. It's not necessary to advance any government interest.
I want to know more about this bizarre club the Prof. belonged to that worshipped this Pam Stewart person. I'm not sure the founders had that in mind!
Was she a Timette?
More importantly, where's the trashtalk about the Foosball?
And, as usual, put me down with RRL and the Farmer
Was she a Timette?
More importantly, where's the trashtalk about the Foosball?
And, as usual, put me down with RRL and the Farmer
# posted by : 11:23 PM
: 11:23 PM
There's a girl at my school who is a Creationist and thinks that Creation should be taught in place of evolution. Not alongside, but in place of. Now, I really don't see the problem with putting up a nativity next to a courthouse, but how will some kids who weren't Christians, Muslims, or Jews react to being taught Judeo-Christian theology?
In other words, schools are one place that church and state should remain separate.
In other words, schools are one place that church and state should remain separate.
IPLawguy ~ I don't believe Miss Stewart was a 'Timette'.
Micah - very nicely stated
Someone mentioned Christmas Trees. I've been reading up on the winter solstice and Trees with candles (light)along with Mistletoe were Pagan symbols from what I have found.
Micah - very nicely stated
Someone mentioned Christmas Trees. I've been reading up on the winter solstice and Trees with candles (light)along with Mistletoe were Pagan symbols from what I have found.
I am impressed with Micah's 5:57 AM comments.
John C. Calhoun (not a hero but an interesting creature), who regularly rose at 4:30, liked to say, "every day was a race, and if one was not running by 5:00 AM, the contest was already lost."
A Question:
How do you all feel about Christmas vacation at public schools and religious holidays for state employees?
John C. Calhoun (not a hero but an interesting creature), who regularly rose at 4:30, liked to say, "every day was a race, and if one was not running by 5:00 AM, the contest was already lost."
A Question:
How do you all feel about Christmas vacation at public schools and religious holidays for state employees?
I just want to know why everyone in pic 1 looks like they are watching Bates perform brain surgery? Except the professor...but that is probably how Prof. Osler would look if asked to perform brain surgery.
Pic 2 is much more fun.
Pic 2 is much more fun.
Farmer
I think that one's free exercise rights cover getting religious holidays off from school and work. Consider: Jewish and Muslim people already take off for holidays that aren't official. I don't see a problem for that, just like I don't see a problem with anti-discrimination laws that protect orthodox Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, etc., from being excused from working on Saturdays. I think those are reasonable accommodations that private and public employers can make without appearing to endorse the religion.
The reason why religious types are so hellbent on getting these public displays of things like the Decalogue or Nativity scenes up is to "remind people that we're x kind of nation." Seriously. Look at some of their statements when they do it.
But we're not. This isn't a Christian nation. Or a Judeo-Christian one. Or an Abrahamic one. It's a democratic, secular nation. We have lots of (a majority of) Christian people, who have every right to display their faith publicly. But they shouldn't be allowed to co-opt public land to broadcast religious messages. The government should stay neutral in these areas, not to avoid offending people, but to avoid the tacit endorsement of a religious position over another.
So letting people off for holidays that are religious -- not a big deal. There's no endorsement that the tenets of said faith are the "true faith" by letting someone off for a holiday.
Post a Comment
I think that one's free exercise rights cover getting religious holidays off from school and work. Consider: Jewish and Muslim people already take off for holidays that aren't official. I don't see a problem for that, just like I don't see a problem with anti-discrimination laws that protect orthodox Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, etc., from being excused from working on Saturdays. I think those are reasonable accommodations that private and public employers can make without appearing to endorse the religion.
The reason why religious types are so hellbent on getting these public displays of things like the Decalogue or Nativity scenes up is to "remind people that we're x kind of nation." Seriously. Look at some of their statements when they do it.
But we're not. This isn't a Christian nation. Or a Judeo-Christian one. Or an Abrahamic one. It's a democratic, secular nation. We have lots of (a majority of) Christian people, who have every right to display their faith publicly. But they shouldn't be allowed to co-opt public land to broadcast religious messages. The government should stay neutral in these areas, not to avoid offending people, but to avoid the tacit endorsement of a religious position over another.
So letting people off for holidays that are religious -- not a big deal. There's no endorsement that the tenets of said faith are the "true faith" by letting someone off for a holiday.
<< Home
