John Ascroft violating the separation of church and state?

Great Debates
81

Which side do you expect to have problems with it, rjung?

In a similar vein, Degrance makes a big deal of the fact that he is a pagan (one of the persecuted minorities)and therefore he must be against Ashcroft’s prayer/Bible study meetings. Degrance, I’m a gay agnostic furfan polyamorous-supporting former-pagan slut-at-heart. I’m sure that on about 90% of my personality/lifestyle/orientation/hobbies, Mr. Ashcroft can find a verse in his Bible that condemns them. And if you do a thread search on my username, you’ll find that I often come down on the liberal side of these arguments. But the fact that people are trotting out some of the tenets of his religion as a reason that he should not be doing these prayer meetings/Bible studies is making me very uncomfortable. What happened to recognizing the fact that this sword has two edges? If you tell Ashcroft he can’t do this because it makes his pagan/liberal federal employees feel uncomfortable, then you’re opening the door to someone also telling a hypothetical Wiccan/Unitarian/Bah’ai AG that s/he can’t hold their own discussions of Wiccan/Unitarian/Bah’ai belief. It cuts both ways.

I just cannot see where this is such a viscerally horrible thing. I’m one of those people Ashcroft would disenfranchise, given a reasonable legal chance. But I refuse to use that as justification for not allowing him to enjoy his freedoms of religion and speech. To do so is to lower myself to that level.

jayjay

82

The debate I think you’re referring to was whether Wiccan members of the military should be allowed to use a base chapel to conduct services. I’m not sure what position, if any, Bush took on the issue, but for purposes of the argument, I’m willing to assume you’re right, and that further, Ashcroft agrees with Bush on the issue. Lets further assume that the reason he does is because he is pentacostal, and that all pentacostals believe that. (I don’t know if any of this is true or not, but for this post, I’m assuming it all is). How is Ashcroft’s leading a bible study any more offensive than the fact that he’s attorney general in the first place? As you mentioned, the bible study you mentioned doesn’t talk about pagans not being allowed to have equal rights, or how to persecute pagans. It talks about the bible. In fact, you as a pagan are welcome to participate.

When John Ashcroft became attorney general, he promised to support the rights of every American, regardless of whether or not he personally believed what that person believed. Now, it’s possible he was lying, but he hasn’t shown that, and, I, for one, am willing to take him at his word. John Ashcroft has the same right as you, I, or anyone else does, to believe what he wants, and he has the same right as you, I, or anyone else, to worship freely. I’m not asking you to like or share his beliefs…I certainly don’t. I am, however, asking you to realize that the fact that he has a bible study is not an attack on you or your beliefs, and that he has a right to practice them. Ironically, the case of John Ashcroft’s bible study has very close comparisons to the case of the Wiccans who wanted to use the base chapel to worship. In both cases, a group of people, who have religious beliefs that make others uncomfortable, want to be free to worship on government property.

83

As has been pointed out, the argument is going in circles because of a lack of perspective. I still do not find any valid objections to the points Degrance, Tj, myself, and others have posted, but that is probably because we can’t see eye to eye.

My position is that meeting to discuss the Red Horned One under the same conditions Ashcroft is holding his prayer meeting is just as incorrect. Considerably earlier in the thread, I posted a question that has gone unanswered and that is related to Rjung’s question.

Assume Ashcroft is an atheist. I don’t normally like hypothetical arguments, but this discussion is not going anywhere and I will try to keep my hypothesis as tight as possible. Ashcroft’s meetings focus on atheist literature, and are carried out in exactly the same way as those he is carrying out now (with subordinates, in a federal building, etc.).

Does anyone believe that this would be tolerated? We’re not talking about worshipping Satan. We’re not talking about people like Degrance practicing a maligned fringe religion. We are simply talking about atheistic meetings held by the AG in a federal building, to which his subordinates are invited. The meetings focus on denying the existence and influence of God, offering philosophical and scientific arguments to support atheism, and resolving that, lacking any God, humans are the supreme beings. And so forth. The meetings do not specifically attack religions, but owing to the nature of atheism the material discussed is contradictory to other religions (and this is clearly the case with funadamentalism, which is frequently against other creeds and in many cases attacks them openly).

Just imagine the outcry, both from the public and from the government itself, when it is found that the AG would A) endorse views that the people find so controversial, and B) do so in a federal building, addressing his employess, under government employment, and in his capacity as one of the most powerful men in the country.

Yes, atheistic meetings would be just as incorrect as RAMP and other theistic exercises, because they are in the wrong place. Not only is it an unfair practice, but it also contributes to a hostile working environment and to workplace discrimination, for the reasons described previously (and frequently).

84

Oh absolutely!

I think it would probably cause a hostile working environment for somebody in any organization if the boss started holding religious classes in the office. I hope you don’t think that I was wanting rights for myself that I would deny to others.

Let me put it this way then. No boss anywhere should start religious classes at the office. To do so would inevitably create a hostile working environment for somebody in the organization.

Following one’s path at work or at home is an absolute right I am glad of every day. Sharing your religion with others however is and should be a private function completely separated from the workplace.

I know the government organization where I work has policies about “over emphasizing” religion at work. Your right to share your religion ends where a co-worker’s discomfort begins. Again this is a Government Agency policy and I see no reason the AG shouldn’t be as sensitive to this as any file clerk. The situation becomes even worse, I’m sure you can understand, when the religious enthusiast is the supervisor and worse yet when it is the boss.

This situation should never have been allowed to exist. Ashcroft should have better sense than to demonstrate his insensitivity to religious minorities. I disturbs me that he does not.

85

Indeed he does. But worship does not belong at the office for either he or I.

Absolutely, he does. Just not at the office.

No it does not.

These men were not invited by their commanding officer to attend the Wiccan services.

These men are not a member of a majority religion with the expressed desire to limit the rights of minority religions (whether they have promised not to act on that desire for the time being or not).

These soldiers LIVE on government property and must get permission to leave. Last I new the AG lived on private property and could leave the government property he frequents without getting permission.

Denying the right to worship on government property to Pagan soldiers is denying them the right to worship except when they are on leave. It isn’t just the chapel that would be closed to them. Wiccans prefer to worship outside. It would be the entire base that would be closed to them.

I don’t think you could find two cases less similar.

86

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Degrance *
**But worship does not belong at the office for either he or I… Absolutely, [Ashcroft] does [have the right to do bible study]. Just not at the office.

[QUOTE]
**

  1. Degrance should have written “him or me.”

  2. Degrance and his supporters have repeatedly said that worship doesn’t belong in the office. Can any of you point to some sort of support or basis. E.g., the Constitution says nothing about where one may pray or may not pray. Are their laws? Etiquette books? Anything at all?

87

So far, it boils down to whether an employer may or may not hold sessions of a clearly and specifically religious nature, with his employees, on federal grounds.

There is a parallel here with prayer in schools; what happened with that?

Would anyone like to respond to my coin-flip argument concerning Ashcroft’s atheist classes? I suspect a lot of people on this board have a strong Christian bias–without necessarily being Christian-- and may not even realize it. It doesn’t matter what the religion in question is, there are a host of objections to Ashcroft’s behaviour and I still don’t see them addressed.

Well yes, but if we start nitpicking we will be here all year. And it contributes nothing to the argument, unless you are trying to prove that Degrance’s poor grammar renders him unfit to debate this point! Looking at the rest of his/her posts, I don’t see support for that.

This is not the whole argument here. Prayer can belong in the office as long as it is private (not a buddy group) because it does not impinge on the freedom of others and on the work enviroment. When you are a boss (sigh, here we go again) and you invite your subordinates to prayer this becomes a group exercise with all the attached group dynamics. Such group dynamics–owing to the unstoppable nature of bias–are transferred to the workplace itself, and some workers risk being “overlooked”, offended, harrassed, discriminated, and so forth. It is asking for hostility to develop. This point was made at least 15 times so far in this thread and never properly refuted.

I think SOCAS and freedom pretty much cover the right of every individual not to be burdened with the faith or faith-related bias of others. I am unclear on precise workplace laws, and I think there would be a hard time overcoming the Christian bias in the US to establish the precise truth about this–just look at the debacle of prayer in schools, student textbooks on Creationism, and so forth. Degrance and others have offered some legal arguments in support of “our” position; I believe they are all back there in the thread.

Would anyone, particularly the people “we” are arguing against, try the Ascroft coin-flip on for size? Not only from a personal point of view but, if you can, please give us your opinion of how the public would react.

88

No. SOCAS only protects stops the government from making laws about religion. Hence the name, Seperation of <i>Church</i> and <i>State</i>.

–John

89

Sorry to get back to this thread so late, but Abe has written a post that cries out for answering.

So evidence of wrongdoing is not necessary to condemn some course of action? This sounds unpleasantly like saying “We don’t care if he did anything wrong. He deserves punishment for his religious beliefs.”

Your definition of ‘inappropriate’ seems to mean “He is perfectly justified in doing it, but I don’t like it, so he has to be stopped.”

I didn’t say ‘every’; I said ‘any’. If you consider the production of even a single piece of evidence as too high a bar for you to reach, you have already lost your argument.

Please cite some other instances in which you feel it is a good idea to deprive a person of his or her rights under the Constitution, even if they have done nothing wrong. We may be able then to reach some definition of ‘inappropriate’ that does not boil down to “Well, those Christians are just Not Our Sort. See what can be done to shut them up, will you?”

90

That is not an answer, that is another evasion/stump speach. You misstate other peoples’ views so that you can laugh at them, that is all.

You’ve been invited to engage in debate. That’s what we do here. Speechifying is for IMHO.

tj

91

What? When did “debate” come to mean “agree with the Left”? There is a lot of room for interpretation on this subject. None of us are federal judges (AFAIK, anyway), and the simple truth is that nothing we decide here is going to have any bearing at all on whether Ashcroft continues these meetings or discontinues them. If his employees at Justice wish to take him before the Nine (ooh, so Tolkienian) and claim violation of the 1st Amendment, they’re free to do so. Until then, and until the Supremes decide such a case, it’s arguable either way. But I think that under a judicial reading of the 1st Amendment, Ashcroft is free and clear on this. Even if it is inappropriate, a federal court will not touch that as long as it’s legal. Propriety is an artifact of manners, not law.

jayjay

92

Jayjay’s point about propriety has some validity, though I advise Shodan to read through the whole thread and note that Tejota’s assessment of his post seems supported by the repetitive arguments being posted here. We’ve been discussing this for a few days!

Yue Han, I think my statement makes sense. Keeping Church and State separate is after all also in the interests of citizens, not simply of the Church and State administrations.

Back to Jayjay: I don’t think anyone here was about to go modify the law as soon as a decision was reached! There have been a number of posts that address the legality of the situation, which I do not think is resolved. Additionally, I would ask you to consider how the public and the government would react to Ashcroft holding atheist classes instead of prayer classes under exactly the same circumstances. I don’t think it would be permitted. That’s because there is a strong conscious and unconscious Christian bias in the US (as I indicated with the problems of the controversy in school prayer and evolution).

Everyone should have the freedom to enjoy a fair environment. When religion is introduced in group dynamics such as the workplace or the neighbourhood, fairness tends to go out the window and all too often bias sets in. That’s why it would be better for Ashcroft to hold prayer classes for his friends rather than for his employees and on federal property.

I also raise a point made earlier in the thread:

I don’t think this is unlikely. For example, generic worship of God tends to be rather low in specific content, so as to accommodate as many faiths as possible–this is what the judges may have meant by “sufficiently devoid of real religious content”. It is very unlikely that Ashcroft is holding generic non-denominational prayer classes, because he is discussing very specific material (Christian dogma) and because (various objections as to him being fundamentalist, AG, etc.).

But back to the “devoid of religious content”, I think a the bard put it best:

Emphasis mine.

93

Abe, thanks for raising the tone with that Hamlet quote. The quote criticizes prayer without religious content, yet that’s the type encouraged by US law, according to Abe. Odd…

This reminds me of the joke about the man who wanted to enter a temple without a ticket on the High Holy Days. He said to the guard, “Please let me in; I have to deliver a message to my brother in there.”

The guard said, “OK, but God help you if I catch you praying.”

94

OK, perhaps Ashcroft’s prayer group is “inappropriate”. But what does that mean? All you people who feel it is unconstitutional clearly don’t have a leg to stand on, since he’s doing it out in public. Perhaps you should alert the ACLU so they can sue him or something. However, it remains to be seen whether the ACLU would support you or Ashcroft. Remember, that “free exericise thereof” part of the first amendment?

It is clearly not a violation of SOCAS. But what about “appropriate”? Here’s the thing. The reality is, appropriate would mean “liable to embarress the boss or the company”. Meaning, if people are ticked off about it, Mr. Cheney is going to give Ashcroft a call and tell him ixnay on the ayingpray. If no one cares, if it doesn’t harm Bush’s re-election chances or his ability to get his agenda pushed through, then it was “appropriate”. It would not violate SOCAS for Ashcroft to hold talks on atheism, but it could be embarrassing for the administration. Therefore, he wouldn’t do it, even if he was an atheist.

It is NOT true that employers are generally prohibited from religious discussion with their workers. And it is irrelevant what religion Ashcroft belongs to, or whether that religion is generally hostile to pagans or not. I imagine that pentecostals are rather hostile toward atheists too, right? Does that mean that professed pentecostals should be barred from federal jobs because they are against certain religions? No, that would be a violation of the first amendment. No officeholder can be subjected to a religious test.

So, the objection is not that he is pentacostal, his religion is irrelevant. It is that he is holding meetings with his employees, or fellow appointees, on government property. When people propose hypotheticals, they are trying to get you objectors to figure out what exactly he is doing wrong. Is it that he is meeting with employees? Or is it because it is at work? Or are both required for it to be wrong?

It seems to me that this boils down to, “Ashcroft is a big fat jerk for holding prayer meetings at work”. Fine, don’t vote for Dubya and Mr. Cheney next time. You don’t like the fact that he’s doing this. But you have no constitutional guarantee to not be offended by the religious habits of government appointees. Plenty of people could be offended by jewish, or atheist, or buddhist, or muslim appointees. You clearly have no right not to despise Ashcroft for his religious choices. Your recourse is not judicial, but political: use the political process to work against the administration.

95

No, I do not agree that Ashcroft’sleading a prayer group at work is inappropriate. I have heard no reasonable definition of ‘inappropriate’ that does not simply mean ‘I don’t like it’.

If Mr. Ashcroft, or some other federal employee, would want to set up an atheists’ group under the same circumstances as his prayer group, let him do so. Let those who wish to attend, do so. If any person can show that he suffered some disadvantage from not attending, or gained some advantage from doing so, let the lawsuits begin. But what Mr. Ashcroft does in his spare time (and before working hours is, by definition, his spare time) is not subject to veto by default. Mr. Ashcroft remains an American citizen. He has every right to hold his religious beliefs, and to practice them, and to encourage others to share them. Those who don’t wish to, don’t have to. But they do have to allow him to do so.

So, as I said before, let’s have some evidence that Mr. Ashcroft is abusing his position. Not that he might, or that it hurts your feelings to be disagreed with, or any of the rest of it. Real evidence of real abuses.

I have to keep repeating it because no one addresses it. There is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about his actions. Those who wish to attend his sessions are free to do so; those who do not are free to decline.

Or doesn’t the First Amendment mean what it says?

Regards,
Shodan

96

No one addresses it? The entire thread is about this point. The situation is not as simple as you persist in portraying it, and your argument is indeed old. The problem here is that by virtue of the circumstances and the actions of Ashcroft as AG we are inferring that this situation is unsuitable, improper, inappropriate to its environment. The sum of the whole is greater than its parts: Ashcroft may not be doing any one thing that is fundamentally wrong, but his actions viewed in context are unacceptable. Try the Ashcroft as an atheist experiment, and if you feel it would be acceptable to the government and the public, you would probably have the best argument against those who think the AG is wrong here.

There is plenty of relevant material posted above that you cannot dismiss with “let’s have some evidence that Mr. Ashcroft is abusing his position”. As for the legality of the matter, Degrance raised some interesting objections.

97

Keep your hypocrisy to yourself. Apart from that, I spent some time pondering whether the above comment (never mind the silly joke) was made in earnest. It contains very little information, but I think I can spot a point.

Does US Law encourage prayer? I am not aware that it does, and if I am correct your argument by assumption is defeated.

Did not US Law allow generic prayer because this kind of praying is (self-evidently, since it was allowed) low in religious content? That, to my knowledge is the reason.

If is it low in religious content, doesn’t the quote from Hamlet have some application here? I am not saying that the words of people who pray generic never to heaven go; I posted that quote as illustration of low content (meaning) in prayer. Saying a generic prayer is rather different from invoking Baal to smite your enemies and wither the genitals of their children. A generic prayer is different from invoking a being whose nature is in conflict with another. And so forth, but I don’t really want to get into that.

There are some arguments posted above concerning the specificity of Ashcroft’s prayers.

Religion brings conflict and must be managed very carefully in affairs of state. It’s one of the most important lessons in the history of the world. All the people who say that Ashcroft should not be RAMPing have this in mind. Do you disagree, or do you see this as being beside the point?

98

I seem to be missing something here, although maybe I skipped over it while trying to avoid the vitriolic statements being made in some of the posts.

First off, I have absolutely no desire to show Ashcroft or anyone else the flaws in their belief system. They can “pray 'til the cows come home” in the privacy of their own office, their home, their church, etc.

IIRC, the reason behind forbidding structured prayer in school, was to prevent those children with a different belief system from feeling pressured into joining in with the masses? Wasn’t another reason to keep them from feeling that the person who controlled their success (the teacher) might be influenced by their difference in beliefs? How is this different? I’m not going to argue the legality of it, as I’m not a lawyer, nor am I an expert on constitutional theory, but I do find it HIGHLY inappropriate.

As to some of the comparisons, this isn’t even close to flagpole prayer sessions. Those are students (i.e. equals) involved in the process. If a teacher was ever involved, I’d be in the school boards face in an instant. If some justice employees decide to get together on the lawn at lunch time and pray, good for them. Let the boss pray with his own peers.

99

Heaven only knows what the reason was. (so to speak) For many decades the Constitution was understood to permit encouragement of religion. The Founding Fathers mentioned God in their key writings. We had “In God We Trust” on coins. There were opening prayers in Congress, etc. The Constitutional prohibition against “establishment of religion” was understood to prevent us from formally adopting a legal state religion, as was done in some other countries.

Somehow this provision has now been used to mean total SOCAS. IMHO there are many Americans today who would go beyond Separation of Church and State to Separation of Church and *Society *. E.g., some would object if the President of a private company held regular bible study classes in the conference room.

DMC, I don’t know the motivation of those who promoted this change. I consider it one manifistation of the decadent age we live in.

Abe – my aside about insincere prayer being legally preferred was also meant to point out what I see as an example of decadence.

100

Have any of those who have posted already EVER worked for the Federal Government? You get to listen to all sorts of speeches about how you should behave at work, and see all sorts of movies. One of the things they harp on and on about is that you should do everything you can to avoid the “Appearance of impropriety.” Impropriety of ANY kind. Whether it be fraternization, sexual harassment, religious harassment, or racism. It all falls into the same category. And what Ashcroft does definitely creates an atmosphere where the appearance of impropriety can easily be construed. Plain and simple, while it is not illegal, nor unconstitutional, it is just not a good idea. So many things could go wrong with this situation. Why set yourself up for something like that when it can be easily avoided?