Not long ago, I was listening to a radio talk show and the general topic was about the so-called "separation of church and state". On the air, was someone representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They profess to be protecting the constitutional principle of the "separation of church and state".
Now, as I often will do, I offer this disclaimer: I am NOT a constitutional or historical scholar. So with that, take what you wish from my words and viewpoints.
Being the simple man that I am, I tend to look at this subject in a simplistic way, believing that our Constitution was written for me, as well as you, and it isn't that complicated. I also think we should not stray from the principles of that document, and instead, find ways in our modern world to go back and really apply those ideas and principles to our country today.
But, what does the Constitution say about the so-called, "separation of church and state"? Well, as it is written, it states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." Well, I do not see today, anywhere, that our Congress (or any town or city government) has made a law that has established a religion. Where is it that the "state", by way of Congress, or any state or city, has a law that has established a religion? Does a prayer, permitted in public, establish a religion? Do the words, In God We Trust, establish a religion? And, who has been denied ANY governmental services, or even protection, because they were not of a particular religious persuasion? If so, WHAT religion has been established? Point out to me, what religion a law has established!
If you look at the word, "establish", one can easily find as part of the definition,
1 : something established: as a : a settled arrangement; especially: a code of laws b : established church
The 1st Amendment does NOT protect people from being offended. And that, my friends and readers, is what this is really all about. Some people don't want religion in any public view and it offends them that "God" is mentioned! The fact is, no one has been harmed. No one has been denied ANY services or protection, because God is somehow mentioned in the public arena. As long as the government does not pass a law, that establishes a religion, then what is the problem? Just being offended, isn't good enough!
For over 235 years, there has NOT been any government established religion! NO ONE, is required in any way, to follow any particular religion, and NO ONE has been denied services or protections, or any of their constitutional RIGHTS, by the mention of God in a public place, or the word God on our currency and landmarks, or a public display of a Nativity scene! NONE of those, causes anyone to follow any religion. But everyone has a right to follow NO religion, if they wish, and there isn't any violation of any law, and with that, no fine or penalty for doing so, or not doing so. NO ONE would be denied any of constitutional rights, for not following some religion. NONE!
I DO NOT want our government to dictate what religion (or no religion) I must follow. We sure don't need to be denied rights, because we didn't follow some government supported religious doctrine. Our government has not, and should never, dictate that a religion must be followed. THAT would be an establishment!
In today's America, with groups such a Freedom From Religion, and Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, "religion" IS under attack. And they are trying to use that so-called "separation of church and state" to beat us up in the weak kneed courts over it. I think cities everywhere, should stand up and demand to know, which law has been passed that establishes a religion? If they can point to a law, then let's review that for validity. But short of that, get over yourselves! Such expressions, even in public, DO NO HARM. Being offended is NOT a harm. So, be offended. I am offended when such groups try to force me to keep my religion (or any religion) behind private doors!
As it is, there is NO any such "separation of church and state", ONLY that the government shall make no law, establishing a religion. And how about that. There isn't ANY such law, and no government established religion. Only a government allowing the recognition that religion exists, and our people follow historic traditions that we first began a nation with. It just happens, that our founders brought with them, a predominately "christian" following, but they were very specific, that government DID NOT make law, that would establish any religion. I'd suggest, that also clearly says that the government shall not make any law that would prohibit the free exercise thereof. Law suits to take religion out of the public square, is doing just that! Such passages of laws, or granting for the anti-religious petitioners in civil courts, DOES prohibit the free exercise thereof!
There's my two dollars, and two cents!
Cuz, you hit the Nail on the head, What's with these groups, that put so much time and effort to denounce a GOD, that they dont believe exists. If He doesn't exist, then why do they care what anyone else thinks or does concerning Him,(God) And why are they offended by something, they say doesn't exist.DUH! I would like to put them all in a Warzone in a Foxhole during a severe battle, and see how many of them claim the be Athiest when they are about to get their collective A$$'s blown away. And why does the limpwrist Courts give a crap if they are offended, Hell! they Offend me everyday,for being the Idiots that they are, but I dont take them to court. And one more question! Why is it they only attack the "Christians" they never say a word about the Muslims, Buddist, Hindus and the worship of their gods, Oh, maybe they dont want to "Offend" them. ALL COMMON SENSE HAS CEASED.
ReplyDeleteSeparation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteWhile the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
A word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that--REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives--small government conservatives--should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with "standing" (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government's failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.
Doug, I sincerely appreciate your very informative, even educational, comments.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with most of your over-all position and view. I would NEVER want the government to dictate what religion anyone must follow, or become a "christian" government, or for then government make anyone feel that they had to belong/believe a religion.
But for the government to "permit" religious symbols on government properties, would not seem to me, and I'd suggest the majority of Americans, as "establishing" a religion. We DO have many religious symbols in our government, and have had from the beginnings, as seen in many writing of our Forefathers. Yet, NO ONE has been forced, by way of any law that would "establish" any religion.
I'd also say, that for decades no such HARM has been done to anyone, but for the past couple decades, we've seen an onslought of action over religion.
So WHY, other than simply being offended, should a select small group of people, be able to force the "government" to deny ALL symbols, even to the point of removing crosses from national cemeteries? To me, if permitted to advance in ways some atheists would want, a "view of a cross" from the public square, would be seen as offensive, and they would want zones for such places of worship to such "influence" wouldn't be seen or felt by anyone trying to conduct business or services! Where would it end?
So I am still left asking this, I guess -
In what way have litigants shown actual "harm"? The courts have not concerned itself with just being offended, so what has been the actual harm?
All that said, and asked, I will state, that having an opposing voice is critical, as are discussions, in keeping the government at bay and in balance.
Thanks again!
Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–-as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere--which covers some of the questions you ask, e.g., when government display of religious symbols is allowed and when not. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
ReplyDelete