Separation of Church and State

[Tarantism]

Originally Posted by the First Amendment

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to reduce substantially the promotion of religion by state governments.

Originally Posted by Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

"government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

i was just going through some documents and i thought this might be helpful to the discussion. wording credit to Wikipedia.

also, i didnt want to copy/paste the entire thing, but i suggest that everyone read this as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establi...irst_Amendment

[TheBigDog]

I think that utilizing private organizations - faith based or otherwise - in essentially the privitization of local humanitarian work is a great idea. They are typically far more efficient that the govenment at making money actually accomplish something. All Bush did was to remove the restrictions against faith based organizations having access to federal assistance for such efforts. They should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other group to make sure that they are using the funds as intended. But federal red tape should not get involved with their hiring practices. You are talking about federal dollars that were already earmarked for that type of use. By letting religious institutions get into the mix it just makes those dollars more effective.

Originally Posted by Edella

I'm not aware of any secularists or secular organizations trying to remove all religion from society.Can you give an example?

Take Mike newdow. A lawyer and doctor by trade. He brought all the way to the supreme court the petition to remove the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. He is not a group per se, but his fight was used as a tool for political polarization by the left to characterize anyone who opposed this idea as being "the religious right" - and out to indoctrinate religion into impressionable minds. The amount of rallying behind this guy was freightening. Since then he has moved on to other things. He brought a federal law suite against the government because the presidential oath of office is a pledge to God. He is planning to sue the government to remove "In God we Trust" as the natinoal motto and get it off of all currency. To have "God Bless America" banned at government funded public events public events. There was a time when he would have been widly viewed as a nut out to destroy tradition. Now he is widly viewed a a hero of the reform movement, and opposition to him is charaterized as extremeism.

The ACLU is also no friend of religious history and tradition. Take this example of removing plaques from the Grand canyon. And the numerous lawsuits to remove crosses from city and county seals. Who exaclty was the victim of that cross on the Los Angeles seal? Or the plaques at the Grand Canyon? As though the Psalms are forbidden for public consumption because they happen to come from the Bible. This is an insidious and persistant trend. And the trend is toward all of these things falling away because cities don't want to waste money fighting them in court. Then when the precidents have been set the court battles become more difficult and expensive and harder to justify. So more consessions are made. The slippery slope is inclining. Are you ready for the ramifications of where it ends?

Bill

[Tarantism]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Tartanism, at the risk of taking this thread slightly off course, can your give me an example of a law that is less than ideal as a result of Christian influence?

Bill

a few more that i could name are the presidential funding by religious organizations (who remembers the christian organization saying that their prays got bush elected the second time?), the abortion issue is another good one.

[Edella]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Tartanism, at the risk of taking this thread slightly off course, can your give me an example of a law that is less than ideal as a result of Christian influence?

Bill

Blue laws come to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

[C1ay]

Let me begin here with an apology for such a long post, BigDog just happened to present an opportunity to throw in my 2¢...

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

There is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the US Constitution. However, this does not stop even well educated people from making the claim that all aspects of religion should be barred from mention or visibility in any government matters. To me this is a highy radical view.

Why radical?

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

The religious beliefs have been part of the fabric of the US since its inception. And as such they done no harm to any individual's rights. With the swell of anti-religion in the US quite the contrary has been happening.

Long standing traditions are being redefined as forced religious ceremonies. Yet the recognition of religious holidays and significant events by the government is not in any fashion the same as making laws establishing religion.

But it is a respect or preference for theist belief as opposed to being secular. Use our currency for example. To place the words "In God We Trust" on currency the government is making an official statement that God exists, it is effectively an official endorsement of theism. View thsi in contrast to currency that makes no such statement. Such currency would not endorse or refute any theist belief, it would simply be neutral or secular. Some claim such money would be atheist but it would really need to endorse a disbelief in God to be atheist.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

What is very interesting is that people on both sides of the argument use the same letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group in Connecticut, back in 1801 as evidence for their respective arguments. On the separate side people tend to quote one line from the letter saying...

... and taking that to mean that the government should have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

But when read in context to the letter he was replying to you find that he was not against being religious, or the governments recognition of religion at all. When the Baptists from Conneticut wrote ...

... Thomas jefferson was in agreement with them, and was assuring them that the first Amendment did indeed protect them from the State of Conneticut establishing an official religion, which was their concern.

IMO, both of these fall short of the truth. To really read what was said in context you must look at the whole picture, both the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association and Jefferson's complete, unedited reply to them. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted."

Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. Here are both letters in their entirety:

Originally Posted by National Archives

The Danbury Baptist's letter
The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express ou great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson

Originally Posted by National Archives

Jefferson's Reply
Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the

Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Note Jefferson's reasoning here in brackets. It was his opinion that the Executive branch could only perform acts that were approved by Congress and that Congress was inhibited from acts respecting religion. In the linked original, note that this section was stricken from his final letter so as not to offend members of his party in the eastern states. While Jefferson himself was undoubtedly a religious man in his personal life he felt there was an absolute wall that prevented him from performing religious acts as President. He not only demonstrates an opinion that the government cannot establish a state religion but also that the government cannot commit any acts respecting religion. This would include any endorsements of any particular religious belief over another including theism as a whole. Also note that just two days after issuing the Danbury letter he attended church services in the House of Representatives. He fully supported personal freedom of religion but opposed any official government involvement.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

In typical activist style that bit of misquoting has been used ever since in an effort to change the meaning of the Constitution rather than amending the Constitution to mean something different.

So the political battle rages, and the secularists who preach acceptance and brotherhood and understanding systematically try to remove all religion from society.

And that is what is required to present an equal, unbiased, secular government to all, regardless of personal religious beliefs.

[Racoon]

Woah!

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

… at the risk of taking this thread slightly off course, can your give me an example of a law that is less than ideal as a result of Christian influence?

I believe a collection of related regulations (not adopted public law, but the implementation of law as public policy), related to contraception and sexually transmitted disease prevention is less than ideal – that is, has a overall negative impact on health and society - as a result of Christian influence on the oversight process in the US FDA. A well-publicized example is the process of approval of emergency contraception and abortificant drugs, AKA “morning after pills”, such as “Plan B” and RU-486. Although approved as prescription medications, these drugs are most effective when used as soon as possible after intercourse, making the requirement to obtain a physician’s prescription a practical impediment to their effective use. I believe this wikipedia article provides an accurate and unbiased summary of the controversy surrounding these classes of drugs in the US.

Similar cases exist. In general, a reasonable person may conclude that significant constituency are exerting influence on the various US governments to curtail sexual behavior contrary to certain religious doctrine, advocating a policy of “abstinence only”. Spokespersons for this constituency generally defend this policy on scientific grounds by contending that is a comprehensive pregnancy and disease prevention program of proven value, superior to drug and mechanical contraception and prophylaxis. This contention is not supported by well controlled studies.

Although the struggle for an against legislative and regulatory control of human sexual behavior is neither new, one-sided, nor entirely politically polarized – the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives recently introduced legislation compelling the FDA to issue a decision on “Plan B” without further delay H.R.4229, it is scientifically and statistically demonstrable that many current US health regulations have a negative impact of health, with consequences as severe as unnecessary death.

An example of a former state policy due to Christian influence may be found in 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the US Supreme Court set aside a 19th century law banning any form of contraception.

[Cedars]

Yes I think that separation of church and state is important, even vital in the USA and I would hope someday all countries model their approach along this line.

Right or wrong, religion is a rally point for a lot of people. It presents itself as an absolute power or bridge between people and absolute power. There is so much room for abuse of others under the guise of many religions, that it seems to me that the only safeguard against abuse in the name of a religions God is to keep its idealisms separate from government. Behaviors that are tolerated by one idealism are an abomination under another. Theologies tend to be intolerant of some, in my view. As it is, I do not think a muslim, a hindu, a pagan, an animist, or several other religious idealisms could be elected president of the united states. It would be religion that would be the deciding factor because it is that influential on that many people in the USA.

Religion in the USA is not limited by the safeguards put in place by the constitution and several court rulings, regarding the free exercise of religions. The Judge Moore ruling a few years ago is a good example. He feels his freedom of religion was compromised but it was not. There is no Christian doctrine that I am aware of that demands the display of carved rocks at your place of employment. What was compromised is his ability to force others to view his religious idealisms in his government work environment. He could have opened a law office and displayed his rock on the front lawn if he chose to. But he did not own the property of this courthouse, we the people do (as in the residents of that county/state). If he began working for another lawyer, he would not have had a right to display his rock of commandments on their property either. Depending on the rules of his city, he could have probably displayed this rock on the front lawn of his home (if he owned it). But if a city rule prevented him from this, the city rule would have applied to all of his neighbors regardless of their religious affilation.

As far as whether the USA follows this philosophy or not, I think generally it tries to, but it sometimes takes an outside look/oversight to ensure that it does (Judge Moore case). When a majority of persons in a county hold that idealism, it is easy for the voters themselves to instill a like minded government (kansas board of education and several other districts across different states). These people truely believe their interpretations of their job is correct, but it is often a remote view that decides correctly whether they have overstepped the boundries outlined in the constitution.

[Celeste]

Originally Posted by Infamous
I am a person of faith but I don't want my government telling me which faith I should be following........................Infy

I am a person of faith also, and I absolutely agree with you.

For those living in Utah, separation of church and state has become a major issue in the past decade, not only in government, but in our civic and social structure as well. The sultification of non-LDS members , myself included, is evident in dozens of instances.
Because Utah is predominantely Mormon, (70%), their religious beliefs and overall wealth, are hegemonical forces that constantly need to be reckoned with.
For instance, several years ago, the LDS church secretely bought a city block to create a public park in the middle of downtown Salt Lake, Utahs capital. Somehow, the church obtained the exclusive right to proselytize in the park. 4 years and many arrests later, the Tenth Circuit finally ruled that the pedestrian easement reserved to the City is a traditional public forum to which the free speech clause of the First Amendment applies, and therefore the LDS Church’s restrictions on expressive conduct violated the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. It was amazing to me that this clear violation continued for over 4 years!
To this day, Mormon security guards will ensure that the anyone openly displaying contravene behavior finds another route to any of the adjoining buildings, sidewalks or malls.

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, was also highly debated here. Allegedly, Mormon legislators were/are major contributers. For those that haven't read the CRA, it states;

"The Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

In other words, the bill ensures that God's divine word would hereafter trump all our notions about freedom, law and rights and our courts can't say a thing.

In Utah, "All that stands between the Church and total control of the state is the Establishment Clause and the ACLU."

[FredFlash]

Originally Posted by Celeste

"The Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

Would an order by an officer or agent of the government to execute Joe Jones by slow fire for not keeping the Sabbath be an acknowledgment of God as the source of law?

Fred