In the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Ok, now…
A school puts on its billboard “God Bless America”.
Or…
City Hall puts a netivity scene.
Or…
A moment of silence is observed in schools.
Of course there’s many other examples, including the recent pledge ruling.
So tell me then, how do any of these examples establish a religion or prohibit the free exorcise thereof?
Oops, make tha nativity instead of netivity.
Let’s put it this way: how easy would it be for the government to not do any of those things? Quite easy. So why even risk bumping up against the Establishment Clause by trying?
Free Exercise Clause has its own ambiguity, in that some religious practices are prohibited in certain circumstances (Sikh knives in prison) and others are banned altogether (human sacrifice).
I can’t remember the name, but one of the Gannett columnists had a piece just today in which she imagined living in an America where schoolchildren say “one nation, under Allah.” I believe she said it’s not the sort of thing that should bother her, but it would, anyway, and probably a lot.
Right, good points, but that doesn’t answer my question about how any of my examples, or any examples like them, establish a religion or prohibit the free exorcise thereof.
I’m strictly asking about the constitutionality of such acts.
I see the point, but in this case, God is general, Allah specific. God can be Allah, or Yahweh, or Vishnu, or any number of deities.
And again, I’m trying to limit the discussion to the constitutionality of these types of issues, not peoples preferences
Sqweels, I understand that Thomas Jefferson used the phrase “Seperation of Church and State”, but that’s not stated in the Consitution.
Also, it’s common knowledge that the reference to religion in the first amendment was to prevent another Church of England. None of the examples I gave does that.
That’s a much abused quote, and it only portrays part of what Jefferson taught about the alleged separation of church and state.
In another thread, I cited the following quote from Jefferson as well:
Note what Jefferson said. He obviously did not want the legislature to establish a government-imposed religion, but he was not opposed to the individual states doing so. Clearly, Jefferson was not advocating an absolute and complete separation of church and state… and certainly not “separation” in the sense that is bandied about nowadays. (See http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/social_issues/churchan.htm for further commentary on this matter.)
Incorrect. Please learn more about the Arabic language before you make pronouncements on the meanings of words in said language.
“Allah” is also the word used by Arab Christians to refer to the same entity that Anglophone Christians refer to by the word “God.”
JThunder wrote:
He was very much opposed to the states doing so. (After all, he was the author of Virginia’s version of the separation of church and state.) He just didn’t think that the provisions of the Establishment Claause applied to state governments at that time. Its tenets were extended to state governments through the 14th Amendment, solving that problem.
Thank you, spoke. You saved me the trouble of pointing that out to JThunder.
Joel, Court interpretations of the First Amendment have determined that, not only can the government not give preference to one religion over another, they cannot give preference to religion generally over nonreligion. Does that help steer you towards the answer you’re looking for?
Monty, to Joel’s credit, he may have been speaking contextually. In the American mindset, the word “God” is a little more generic, whereas “Allah” brings specific images of Islam. In terms of denotation, both might mean the same thing, but have different connotative effects. (Kinda like how “pizza” is Italian for “pie,” but most people don’t think of a pie when they hear the word.)
Unless Islamic-Americans get annoyed when they hear “God” because, to them, it brings images of Judaism and Christianity. In that case, I’ll just go slink into the corner…
Resp:
Start slinking. No, don’t. The fact of the matter is that Muslims believe that the deity of the Qur’an is the same deity of the Old and New Testaments. Basically, their view is that the Qur’an was revealed by the same deity of the Old and New Testaments to correct the unauthorized changes in the true religion.
Besides, how many Americans think of something other than Yahweh when they hear the word “god”?
Do you really think that Founding Fathers had in mind that people on public property couldn’t, for example, wish somebody Merry Christmas, they’d have to instead do something like wish somebody a happy winter season?
Looking at the constitution, it’s clear that what it’s referring to is the legislation of religion.
I’ll explain my reasoning.
A lot of people came here to escape religion persecution. When the constitution was written, nobody wanted to ever end up with another Church of England. So they prohibited any government from establishing a religion, or for the most part, regulate any religion. So things like putting “In God We Trust” on the back of money, Congress opening with a prayer, the Ten Commandments posted at the Supreme court, and the examples I gave in the first post, none of these persecute anyone, they don’t establish a religion, no government is regulating any religion, and I’m sure that the Founding Fathers wouldn’t mind any of that at all.
I think if you asked most Americans whether they worship Yahweh you’d get an emphatic “No, I’m a Christian.”
The problem in this debate seems to be that we don’t agree on the definition of the term “neutral” in the phrase “the government should be neutral toward religion”. Conservative Christians (not all conservative christians) seem to believe that “neutral” means that the government doesn’t force anyone to go to their church on Sunday. Non-christians understand that true government neutrality toward religion precludes any official recognition of religion. Personally, I think that should be extended to the tax-immunity, as well. As long as the government of the US is supposed to represent all of the people of the US, it should either not officially recognize any religion or it should recognize all religions (though how it can do that while not excluding atheists/agnostics, I’m not sure). The latter would at least have the virtue of extending the opening prayer for sessions of Congress so long that they wouldn’t be able to set about wasting our money (Lord Vishnu, bless these representatives with the serenity to retain a clear mind. Lady Morrigan, give them the fortitude to stand against the terrorist regimes. Lord Hermes, grant them your swift motion, to speed them through their appointed duties…)
jayjay
Joel: Keep in mind that that indeed does favor a particular religion. Many of the examples, such as the Ten Commandments, imply a bias towards Christian-based morality, as opposed to completely secular morality. They may overlap quite a bit in some areas, but they diverge in crucial sections. Also, keep in mind that if we print something like “In God We Trust” on our money, it continues to be a sign of religious bias, which the founding fathers warded against…
You comment is not logical.
One the one hand, you argue the phrase “seperation of church and state” is not valid because it does not appear in the Constitution, thus implying anything based on the phrase has no standing.
On the other hand, you state it is “common knowledge” the First Amendment refers to prevent another Church of England, but offer no citeable references to support your statement, nor the evolution of such references into mainstream thought that it is now “common knowledge.”
There are plenty of citeable references from a number of Founders explaining separation of church and state. It seems to me the explicit words of the First Amendment along with actual commentary and opinions from the very people who wrote it, debated it and argued for it makes a very strong case.