How Liberty has Been Trampled Over by the Separation of Church and State
Heckler - On the Separation of Church and State
But, has it really?
I say it has not. In fact, government has, through supreme judicial perversion of
Religion is “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.” Another definition is “a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”1 Religion is often erroneously thought to have as its defining element a belief in the supernatural, and the existence of a deity. However, such beliefs are not mandated under the definition of religion. Religion is any commonly shared belief structure or practice that is present within a society, regardless of whether or not the belief structure or practice integrates belief in supernatural events, multiple deities, or a single deity. Christianity is a religion, because of its system of beliefs, which happens to include the belief in God. Similarly, Islam is a religion, a structured belief system, with the belief in God as a central theme. It should be noted that if either of the aforementioned religions did not hold the belief in a supreme being as a tenant, it would nonetheless still be a religion, because of the remaining system of beliefs that would still exist in the absence of divinity. The same could be said about Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, or any other world religion for that matter.
Why is this distinction important? It is critical that Americans understand precisely what it is that they were deprived of by Justice Black’s interpretation, (or misinterpretation more appropriately), of Jefferson’s metaphorical wall in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. (Dreiscach pg 317 – 318) Perhaps more important than understanding the deprivation that has occurred is to obtain an understanding of the coercive nature of the new government-sponsored religion in
The wall was intended to be a one-way bastion of protection from the persecution that inherently exists in state-sponsored religion. (Patton, pg 331) They did not seek to protect government from religion, but rather to protect religion, and the free exercise thereof, from government. The founders sought to be free of the religious persecution to which they had been subjected in the Old World, and to create a nation without the bloody religious wars that had plagued
The founders believed that liberty in the republic was only possible if virtue was present, and virtue and morality could only flourish in the presence of religion. Novak articulates it succinctly, “No republic without liberty; no liberty without virtue; no virtue without religion.” (Novak, pg 310) In his Farewell Address, George Washington declared healthy political debate to be supported by “religion and morality”, and, “that virtue and morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” (
The religions that Justice Black elevated to state-sponsored status are the religions of Secularism, Atheism, and Nietzscheism. These Godless religions are faith-based, as is Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. Christians exercise faith to believe in God, whereas the adherents to the Godless religions exercise faith not to believe in God. Since no truly definitive evidence exists either way, it requires the same amount of faith for the Christian to believe in God as it does for the Atheist to deny God. Christianity bases its morality on the codes handed down from God and recorded in the divinely inspired Word of God, while secularism bases its morality on reason, science, and experience. (Silverman, pg 325) Christians believe that Morality exists based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, while Nietzscheists believe in moral nihilism based on the teachings of Friedrich Nietzsche. (Nietzsche, pg 301)(Jesus, pg 333) The religion of Atheism teaches dysteleology, one of its main tenants, which is the belief that God could not possibly exist because of the pain and suffering that is present on the earth. Christ teaches us that the key to easing the pain and suffering on earth is to love our enemies, and to be good to those who are not good to us.
Every human being whose feet have ever touched the face of the earth, whose breathe has ever captured the air of the planet, and whose mind possesses sufficient mental capacity to reason, has erected his or her own customized personal belief model, or has adopted an existing belief structure that answers, satisfactorily to the individual, the questions of: 1.) the origin of mankind and 2.) the origin and definition of morality. Humans can therefore be divided into two groups, which are: 1.) those who affirm the existence of God, or gods, and 2.) those who deny the existence of God, or gods. It is from one’s personal affirmation or denial of God that codes of morality emanate. One who believes in the Abrahamic monotheistic God, for example, will adopt existing codes of morality that originate from the Judeo-Christian texts and teachings, such as the Ten Commandments or the New Testament. Hindu morality extends from the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, and that of Islam from the texts of the Koran. In the same way, one who believes that God is a fallacious idea will adopt codes of morality that grow out of a belief in: 1.) humanistic universal codes of morality, 2.) the ability of logic and reason to yield the exposure of normative behaviors that are deduced to be the ethical components of secular morality, 3.) instinctive morality that has evolved Darwinistically within the collective conscience of the human race, or 4.) moral nihilism, which is the belief that ideas of right and wrong, and therefore morality by extension, do not exist.
All of these address two fundamental and important questions. The first is: does God exist? The second is: from where does morality originate, and how is it defined? Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, Agnosticism, and Buddhism, as examples, attempt to answer these questions, and therefore all fall in the same definitive ontological category. Irrespective of the label one assigns to the many belief constructs, whether it is the term theistic religion, non-theistic religion, metaphysical belief system, or ontological belief model, all seek to arrive at the same end, which is a definition of morality and an explanation of human existence. In this light, Christianity is no different than Islam, Buddhism is no different than Agnosticism, and Hinduism is no different than Atheism. They all end at the same place: the adoption of a moral code via the determination that God either does or does not exist.
All humans possess ontological belief models, which are effectively religions, whether one chooses to describe them as such, or not. Without a doubt, it is not the role of government to force one belief system over another. In fact, to do so, as Sam Adams described, would be grounds to label one a “bigot.” Religious bigotry is one of the core reasons why Europeans fled the
When the Courts forced removal of prayer from schools in Murray v. Curlett, it was done to appease Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a prominent American Atheist. The subsequent purging of the public sphere of the symbols and practices associated with certain belief systems has deprived the likes of Christians, Jews, and Hindus of the right of free expression by creating a public climate that is comfortable only for the Atheist or Secularist. The government has barred discussion of Creationism, and has endorsed the teaching of Darwinian Theory, which is commonly accepted by virtually all Secularists and Atheists, as the only possible explanation of human origin. Government prohibits opportunities for students to meditate independently, based on their individual belief structure, during moments of silence. Such a prohibition represents a denial of rights to individuals and sects that value meditational reflection, and a concomitant endorsement of Atheistic and Secularist beliefs, which do not value moments of meditative and reflective silence.
The government’s extirpation of belief-based symbology, liturgy, introspection and silent adjuration at the behest of Secularists and Atheists represents tacit approbation of their systems of belief. In effect, Secularism and Atheism are modern
The proper approach for managing beliefs in the public sphere is illustrated beautifully on the walls in the U.S. Supreme Court’s main chamber, where marble panels display sculpted images of Moses, Muhammad, and Confucius. Thus, the moral codes originating from the theistic beliefs of Judaism and Islam are represented in the depictions of Moses and Muhammad, and coexist harmoniously with the non-theistic Chinese humanist idea of morality that emanates from Confucianism, as represented in the depiction of Confucius. And so it is, on the marble friezes of the highest court in the land, in fact the very court that struck free expression from public life, that Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and Secularist beliefs are all represented in unity, in the spirit of diversity. Yet, elsewhere in public life, only the views of Secularists and Atheists have voice.
Repressing public discourse is not tolerance. A Christian hearing and respecting the prayer of a Muslim prior to a public proceeding is true tolerance. A Hindu teacher explaining her beliefs to her Jewish students is true tolerance. A Sikh showing appreciation for Christian art in a government building is true tolerance. An Atheist who explains his position on evolution to a group of science students in a public school is true tolerance. The Buddhist who respectfully contemplates the eight-fold path to enlightenment during a Christian prayer is true tolerance. Rather than a place of restriction, the public sphere should be a place where tribute to our independence from religious repression is paid through the free expression of diverse beliefs. Instead of protesting a Muslim prayer in a public classroom, or a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, we should be filled with thankfulness that Americans are free to engage in religious expression.
Our maturity as a tolerant nation should allow us to observe and respect the free expression of alternate beliefs in the public realm. It is an immature and intolerant nation that cries foul when another publicly exercises his or her religious beliefs. It is a mature and tolerant nation that celebrates liberty when another person publicly exercises his or her religious beliefs. We should not be afraid to hear a Christians pray in a public gathering. We should not fear a Jewish symbol on public property. We should not fear an Atheist’s point of view in a public text book. We should fear none of these, because none of these represent state endorsement of theistic or non-theistic religion. On the other hand, they do represent the very definition of diversity and tolerance.
When religion was stripped from the public sphere, its standards of morality were stripped with it, thus creating a moral vacuum that has since been filled with the morality derived from Godless religions. The ruling upholds and supports the religious tenants of atheism and secularism in public discourse, and disallows the tenants of Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism. When the courthouse lawn is stripped of the nativity scene, government shows reverence to atheist beliefs while scoffing at Christian beliefs. When the Ten Commandments were taken from the classroom, the government gave preferential treatment to students who adhere to atheism and secularism, and second-class treatment to Christians and Jews. Government banned prayer in school to appease adherents of atheism and proponents of secularism, and to appeal to their religious beliefs over those of Christians and Jews.
The early settlers fled to
In case you haven't noticed, there is no new world to which we can flee religious persecution. That means we have two choices: live with it, or change it.
Some try to pass off the Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court's decision. It was only after reaching its conclusion based on a detailed discussion of the historical events leading to the First Amendment that the Court mentioned the letter. The metaphor "separation of church and state" was but a handy catch phrase to describe the upshot of its conclusion. The Court's reading of the First Amendment in this regard was unanimous; all nine Justices agreed on that much, but split 5-4 on whether the Amendment precludes states from paying for transportation of students to religious schools.
ReplyDeletePerhaps even more than Jefferson, Madison influenced the Court's view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even though we had proclaimed new principles, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether such actions were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."
When discussing separation of church and state, it is critical to distinguish between the "public square" and "government." The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Without explanation, you seem to maintain that government cannot simply refrain from promoting religion, but rather must choose at least some religion to promote. By your reckoning, I gather, if government refrains from promoting Christianity (or at least theism of some sort), it necessarily and automatically promotes secularism or atheism, which you see as an alternative religion. (As secularism refers to the idea of keeping government and religion separate, it is oxymoronic to term secularism itself a religion.) The absence of Christianity, in any event, is hardly the same as secularism or atheism. Nonetheless, if you characterize the absence of religion as itself a religion (and survive the tail chasing that requires), then your apparent argument that government cannot help but present a religion is a foregone conclusion--and little more than semantic sophistry.
Doug, I really appreciate your point of view, and I thank you for leaving comments! What you say makes a lot of sense.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't my intention to suggest that government should promote one belief system over another. In fact, the government should not promote any religion at all. At the same time, it should not prohibit religious expression. For instance, if a church wants to place a nativity scene, or a Jewish group a large menorah, on the courthouse lawn, they should be able to do so. (Unless there is some other issue that would prevent placement of the symbol, such as a space constraint.) Allowing free expression, by citizens, on public land, is not promoting a religion. It is, however, promoting free expression.
Also, I understand your point about the dangers of characterizing the absence of religion as itself a religion. I must admit to you that I have struggled with that for a very long time. In my view, government has crossed that fine line, and has actually promoted Atheist points of view such as Darwinian theories, without offering other prominent beliefs that are generally shared by theists. Atheists file lawsuits against a government because it allowed religious expression to occur in a public space, which offended the Atheist. When the courts rule that the symbol must be taken down, it sends a message that the beliefs of the Atheist are of greater importance than the right to free expression, thus showing a preference to Atheist beliefs. It seems as though "the courthouse lawn" should be open to diverse expression, as long as all groups who wish to participate are allowed to do so.
Anyway, thanks again for posting your comments.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou are right to distinguish between government speech and individual speech. It is only the government that is constrained not to promote religion; individuals are free to do so. When it comes to religious displays on government property, the first issue is to determine whether the display is government or individual speech. Depending on the circumstances, it can be either.
If the government allows individuals to place religious displays on its property, it must do so evenhandedly, as you note. Some governments do that; others choose to disallow all such displays, perhaps so they won't have to allow some not to their liking.
You raise an interesting question about people being offended. At bottom, we’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; individuals plainly have that freedom. We’re talking about the government's actions either to promote religion or to unequally allow others to use government resources to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that--regardless of whether anyone is offended. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting 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 must 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.