So Called Seperation of Church and State

Great Debates
81

What I meant by “they can do whatever they damn well please” is that since officials are not charged with binding interpretation of the constitution, officials will decide that SoCS means anything they want and it doesn’t make their interpretation correct, therefore it doesn’t have any bearing as to whether a legitimate interpretation of SoCS infinges people’s rights. Goverment officials manifestly can infing on the rights of others…if not, we woudn’t need the courts or the consitution at all! I think you are confusing “can” with “ought to”.

Your challenges appear to have become somewhat more reserved; originally you claimed implicitly (at least as I understood it) that students were banned from praying in school due to SoCS. Since no court has, I believe, banned students from undisruptive, unoffically mandated prayer in school, I do not believe you can claim that the any currently authoritive interpretation of SoCS has banned students from praying in this manner. Your first two cites are regarding a representaive of the government -created school using government resources to lead all people in a religious expression that cannot help but exclude other’s beliefs…therefore, a portion of religious beliefs have received official sanction, whereas other beliefs or lack thereof have not had the benefit of this. Again, I cannot see how refusing to lend official government sanction to SOME religious beliefs and NOT to others infringes on anyone’s right to their personal expression of religious belief. If the official school graduation in a public school had a specific time set aside for a atheist to stand up and lead the class in a reciation of how glad they were that God did not exist, and no religious sentiment got any time, is this the sort of thing that you feel SoCS should not infringe on?

Your third cite, says, basically: the lower courts have conflicting rulings about student-led prayer at graduation; however, it does not detail the exact circumstances of each case, so they may be different enough that the differing rulings are quite legimate. Say, perhaps in one the prayer is a individual expression of belief, while the other is a officially mandated “voluntary” prayer, where school officials instruct the students when to all start and which prayer to say. And anyway, it is SCOTUS who has the final say in this matter, if lower courts differ. That courts do not always agree on a point of law is unsurprising…that is why we have appeals.

Thank you for answering. However, perhaps I was unclear since I think you have misinterpreted me. Let’s say that a public school broadcasts Christian prayers every morning over the loudspeakers. A judge makes a ruling and says “hey, you can’t use government property to broadcast your religous beliefs to young children.” (The “being able to have goverment resources used to promote their religious beliefs” I was referring to in my question) Now that Christians have been prohibited from using government property to proselytize in a manner that other beliefs do not possess, have their rights been infringed?

Your argument appears to boil down to “people who do not have binding authority to interpret this tenet are interpreting it in an unconstitutional manner…therefore, SoCS is infringing on people’s beleifs.” Which seems much less like an argument against SoCS than an argument about stupid (or, perhaps, misguided) people thinking they know what it means. But if we attacked every guideline because someone can interpret it badly, we’d have nothing left at all. As a general rule, I think the courts haven’t done too badly at preventing excessive governemnt entanglemnt in religion…I could wish they had done better, but I think they are moving towards a society where no genuine and lawful religious belief or lack thereof has official sanction as being more legimate than another.

I think SoCS is a good idea. I think a great deal of the problems some people have with interpreting it comes from misunderstanding…uninformed people think it means no one can pray nondisruptively and as an individual expression anywhere public (as you in fact appeared to think), or that the winks the court has made at “ceremonial deism” means that you should keep the government out of the church, but continue to forcefeed your God into every government insitution you can.

82

Now who is passing out strawmen here? Tell me where letting someone exercise their religion using ppublic property is denying other beliefs from the same. How is it any different than a gay pride parade taking up main street and “denying” the st patricks day parade from using that street?

The popular interpretation of SoCS is that the government must divorce itself from religion. Therefore public places may not endorse, give forum to, nor accomodate religion or it is effectually not seperate. In your analogy you seem to hint that my point is that the government must provide for religious expression no matter what. I see you failed to state the reason the judge would have tried to stop the announcements. You intentionally left it ambiguous. Just wondering if you are trying to trap me or something.

How about this analogy. Every morning a different student is chosen alphabetically to address the school with a presentation of his/her choice to start the day. Kind of a morale thing. Every student is entitled to chose their own presentation and have a free riegn (within reason) of what they want to talk about. One child wants to talk about their relationship with God. The school says that is a violation of SoCS, and makes the student change their theme.

And I have given you at least 3 examples where the courts ruled that students may not pray in public. And don’t say they can do it privately. Nothing in the constitution says the exercise must be private. Seems to me you are saying that the government has a mandate to protect people from religion. That, they emphatically do not. They just cannot force it upon someone. And providing indiividuals, or groups, a forum to exercise their religion is not enforcing. It is freedom of speech. And if someone is offended by my speech and I am censored for it it is a violation of my rights. Them beingsubject to my speech is not a violation of theirs. And the government is not establishing my speech. It is respecting my religion and constitutional right.

If a school allows that child to talk about religion it is not establishing the childs religion. No more so than when it allows Farrakhan to hold a rally on public property. It is not establishing his political/social views, but respecting his freedom of speech.

And my challenges are not more reserved. As a matter of fact I have stuck to the same ones, while you seem to dance around it. All you say is you want court rulings. I am still showing you the same 3 upheld and decided by courts. Not by “official morons”.
You say the ultimate arbiter of these issues are SCOTUS, and that everyone else doesn’t matter. Did you totally miss when I said that alot of the cases SCOTUS refuses to even consider? And my defintiton of SOCS is so widely held, that there are thousands of examples where people are being denied their rights, and upheld/denied in courts. I have given several dozens of links on the subject and can give you hundreds more. And my point is it is based upon the SOCS interpretation and not the correct non-establishment rule. SoCS says that speech may be prohibited in public places for the sole reason that it is religious. Someone said that SoCS was invaluable to them. The reson it is invaluable is because it gives them the tool to censor the speech they do not agree with. When in fact, it violates 3 tenets of the first amendment. Freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion. The only freedom from religion is freedom from government imposed religion. The government is not required to protect you from your neighbors speech just because it is religious. As a matter of fact it cannot do so.
And if you want to poke holes in my quote you could at least give some information to back it up. It “could” mean anything. If you chose not to accept it at face value, by all means, prove it wrong.

I just showed you where poeple of binding authority are missenterprting the first amendment, and they are infringing on peoples rights, not beleifs.

83

It means he lacks a pair, and started to chicken out when he got hammered about the ruling. I would not be surprised in the least if several members of Congress called him up and made threats along the lines of “You can kiss any dreams of being appointed to the Supreme Court goodbye.”

From a legal standpoint, the ruling is so obvious and conclusive that even arguing against it is laughable. But this is a political issue now, not a legal one, and I fully expect the ruling to get overturned by someone who ranks his judicial career higher than his judicial duty. I also fully expect that whatever rationale is given for overturning the decision will be so transparently bogus that it will make Bush v. Gore look brilliant by comparison. :rolleyes:

84

I always feel so lonely in the separation of church and state arguments. It’s hard for me to find anyone in the same faction that I am in. Yet, however much I look at it, my opinions seem to be very strongly founded, and have changed only a tiny bit, over the years that I have paid attention to the issue. (Oddly enough, my first experience in considering the implications inherent in the matter was on the occasion of having to relearn the pledge of allegiance to the flag, in elementary school.)

I am adamantly opposed to the practice of prayer in public places, especially schools run by the state, Courts of law, and public forums conducting the business of government.

I believe that the phrase “under God” is only one thing wrong with the pledge of allegiance, and don’t think it should be taught as other than a single bit of poetic expression.

I would prefer that the phrase “In God we trust.” Be eliminated from our currency.

Required oaths of any sort should be abolished. In the case where what is now called sworn testimony is needed, an affirmation that the statement is given under penalty of perjury should be substituted.

Public displays of biblical texts, or Religious symbols in government premises should be eliminated. (Along with any sacred texts of other religions, of course.) This is especially true of courts, and other buildings associated with the judicial system.

In no way should these restrictions be considered to apply to private citizens who happen to be accessing public facilities, or participating in public events organized by governments. However, the President, Governor, Senator, Congressman, or Teacher is not a private citizen, when he speaks from his office, or an official event of his organization.

Why does this position make me feel lonely? Because I am a Christian, and more to the point, my reasons for holding these opinions are very much a matter of my Faith. I have strong reasons for objecting to each. Despite the fact that I find the political reasoning quite valid in some cases, what is overwhelming more important to me is that each of these things represents a grave threat to my free expression of my own, and my children and grandchildren’s faith in my Lord

But the average Christian in America seems to love George Bush at least as much as God Himself. They evidently want to place their own practice of faith into the hands of secular authority as a default choice in all matters. Why? I don’t get it. School prayer? Did you learn algebra in school? Factor a fifth degree polynomial for me, on the first try. Ever eat a school lunch? Do you want to serve up a nondenominational inoffensive politically approved prayer to the Lord God of Creation? Do you want to authorize any high school teacher to make your son do it?

What the heck happened to teaching religion to you own children, and taking responsibility for their spiritual growth yourself, and doing it with you own church? Was that too much trouble? Shall we just appoint George Bush the American Pope, speaking ex cathedra in our stead, in all matters to be set before our Lord Jesus?

Put the name of my God on money? On money? Are you nuts? It’s the one thing I can think of in all the world that Jesus specifically said was not His! The only thing in all the world. Give our money unto George, and unto the Lord; give our hearts, and souls, willingly, without the supervision of George, and, by the way, at home, with the lights out, and in church, with our brothers in faith.

I am not all that afraid of making the country a theocracy, I am afraid of making christianity a lower case, least common denominator, plasticized commodity provided at Government expense, and according to Department of Health and Welfare Interfaith Guidelines.

YES! Get God out of Government.

Government is profane and unworthy of being included in my worship of the Almighty Son of Heaven. And I will not have the government pass judgment on what is appropriate for prayer, or when, or if. Nor will I cause anyone to show respect for the Lord, unless I am sure it is freely given from their heart. How can a Christian feel any other way?

I really don’t understand.

You atheists can go play among yourselves, I have no argument with you on the political issue. It is my brothers in the Lord with whom I am most profoundly troubled.

Tris

Matthew, Chapter 6 Verses five and six: And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

85

Oh Lordy! A couple of quick points: I actually don’t think it is right for a police offider to wear a cross, or any personal decoration, on his/her uniform. It is a uniform, after all- and thus, as the representative emblem of the authority of the office and the government, different from regular workclothes. (What are the rules for such decoration on military uniform?) The library receptionist case is interesting. I would personally tend to support her right to wear anything she wants, but the problem is, again, that as the greeter in a public institution, she is acting as a representative of the government. This is a case, however, where I would just say: how much power does she have? And that question ishould really be the basis for all SOCS questions. Here is why I say that:

The government (on all levels) has much more power than you or I. It has armed forces, armed police, a huge judicial system, a huge civil service system, and the potential for regulation, if not outright control, of almost all of our activities. The Founders recognized this, and recognized that, in order to ensure that that power is not used to supress the very rights that the government was established to maintain, the government’s power must be restricted. To ensure the free exercise of religion, that restriction must take the form of a “wall of separation” because even the simple presence of a religious emblem on a body which holds the awsome power that the government holds can be coercive.

This is why I find it wrong for a police officer to have a religious emblem on his/her uniform- the officer is the representative of the power of the government, and that power cannot have even the appearance of the establishment of any religion without the potential for interference in the free expression of religion by the people subject to that power. This is true for all offices in government which exercise or could exercise the official power of the government.

If I were a SC justice (yeah sure) I would look at the grey area between those government officials who have power and those who do not. This is why I say I would be on the side of the librarian: while she acts as a representative of the government, she does not hold the power of the government. She is indeed a representative of the freedom which the government is intended to preserve. If she wore an emblem of any religion, or none, or were, as GWB says, a “woman of cover,” those emblems would show the world that the USA is serious about freedom of religion.

But again, that freedom is maintained by restricting the freedom of religion of the government itself, and thus freedom of religion of the bodies holding the power of the government, and the officers of those bodies while in their official capacity, so that that power cannot interfere with free exercise by the people. JDM

86

My favorite piece of a really excellent post. Would you mind if I quoted you on this?

87

Well, this is my last post. Why? Because I have four options.

  1. Change my opinion. (Not gona happen.)
  2. Argue untill the rest of you change your opinion. (Yeah, right.)
  3. Argue forever. (Again, nope.)
  4. Move on to other things. (Bingo.)
    So, so long, see ya in another thread.
88

No.
Your examples were of occasions where a group wanted to use the the occasion and authority of a public event to impose a prayer on the event. They were not examples of people “happening” to pray out loud on public property. A prayer that is led at a graduation or a sporting event is one that is clearly part of the ritual of that government-sponsored event. As such, it has no place. Given that people are allowed to gather in private groups to pray publicly on public property (student prayer groups outside the school day and without administrative moderation, “pray-ins” at capitals and city halls, etc.), it is pretty clear that the graduation and sport rally events have been correctly identified as entanglement.

As it happens, I agree there have been some rather bad decisions regarding your first point that I quoted. I see no problem or entanglement with a rotating group of students reading selections from Khalil Gibran, Dag Hammarskold, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Paine, Rousseau, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, (or Machiavelli), Mao Zedong, and others. To suddenly claim “entanglement” when one quotes St. Paul or Isaiah seems arbitrary to me. “Witnessing” as a class exercise is a bit more problematic (because the details can vary so much), but the courts should disseminate their opinions more clearly so that it is easier for the lay person to identify where the line should be drawn.

89

Joel said, “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.”

Joel, they DO establish “religion”, as opposed to NO religion. It is offensive to those that don’t worship any sort of diety. It excludes athiests, polythiests, agnostics, and the undecided.

As far as wishing someone Merry Christmas, a state employee can act on his own to do that, but the organization itself should not. Personally, I’ve taken to wishing people “happy holidays”, because it encompasses EVERYONE. Even athiests, as the first of the year is included in the holiday season.

90

Amen, Tris.

“My kingdom is not of this world.”

91

Joel, (oh, BTW, I put people’s names in bold simply to distinguish them from the rest of the text. It’s easy to miss when someone’s talking to you otherwise, especially when your handle is all lowercase, like mine. It’s nothing personal.)

Anyway, Joel, I think you missed an option:

  1. Continuing the discussion in a genuine attempt to understand others’ positions and thoroughly explain yours to them. (Possible, but takes guts and patience.)
92

The point is, if they let other officers wear personal item on their uniform to make a personal/political or other statement, it is illegal to deny somone the same right just because it is religious. It doesn’t matter what you think is appropriate. What matters is if you deny rights to one that you give to others just because of the religious connotation

** tomndebb**

Imposition of a prayer? In what form? Are they forcing everyone to pray? Are they establishing any form of mandate? Religious exercise is right there with freedom of speech. As a matter of fact it uses the freedom of speech in many occassions. All forms of political and idealogical speeches are “imposed” in official events. Is the governemnt establishing those ideals and politics? No it is respecting that person first amendment rights. And I will agree that speeches should only be allowed i appropriate for the occassion. But just because someone does not agree with you does not make it inapporpriate. Prayer in ceremonies and competitions are very appropriate. Even athiests wish their people luck or congratulations. So just because it is part of an official or government sanctioned event does not give anyone the right to censor religion. That is unconstitutional. Same as censoring speech and censoring assembly.

Trisk

That is a very poignant and enlightening statement. And, surprisingly enough to me, I agree with most of it. But, although we agree there is no room for government in God, that does not give anyone the right to unconstitutionally take away anyones rights to freedom of expression.“In God We Trust” and “Under God” are debatable issues. But the first amendments freedoms are not.

93

They are performing their religious ritual in the context of a non-religious event that is sponsored by a government entity. They are also creating an environment in which to decline to join the prayer marks one as disruptive to the ceremony. (And people have been thrown out of such events when the organizers chose to perceive simple non-participation as “disruption.”)

Would you agree that any minority member of the group should be allowed to compel the rest of the group to wait and observe while they peformed that member’s liturgies?

Good. Because a religious prayer at a public school, led and organized by the administration of that school (even if set up with a wink and a nudge to have a student “lead” it), is not appropriate for the occasion. But then why do you go on to say

What public purpose is served by calling on the deity of some members of the group to do something?

Religion has not been censored. No person at a graduation or sport event has been told to ignore their god, forbidden to pray, or anything else. They have simply been told that their imposition of their religious rituals are inappropriate at that time when carried out under the aegis of a government-established institution.
In the case of the cross on the policeman’s uniform, the chief was out of line. If the department permits “advocacy” pins and medallions, then a religious medallion should be protected as a personal expression. That is still different, however, from a school using its government-associated powers to indulge some members in a bit of religious devotion that they could easily celebrate at any other place or time (even on the same field or auditorium if there was not already a government-associated program in progress).

94

Originally posted by Taran

Uh, you just did. :smack: :slight_smile:

Oh, you mean somewhere else! Sure. Quotation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Tris

“You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions.” ~ Mahfouz Naguib ~

95

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I do not think that would be ruled unacceptable by SoCS, as long as other viewpoints are also allowed to be expressed, and “proper” religious speech does not receive official encouragement that others do not. Did this actually happen? If so, was it upheld by the courts and what is the current status of the case?

Tomndebb addressed this, so I will let his statement stand, particuarly since I am rather busy right now.

96

*Originally posted by *** Saen **

I don’t agree with your assessment that protecting my faith from intrusive control by the state is a violation of anyone’s first amendment rights.

But, it does infringe on my religious rights when there is school prayer, or Congressional declarations of faith (other than specific declarations made by congresscritters speaking privately). I don’t want the teacher leading prayer because I have no religious faith in the teacher. or George Bush, or Bill Clinton. I wonder why “conservative” Christians are so eager to make their faith a matter of public consensus.

It troubles me that this matter of our choice of spiritual leadership, one of fundamental importance can be so cavalierly dismissed and left to the nearest state bureaucrat. Making it the business of the state to lead my child in spiritual expression is a grotesque violation of my first amendment rights, but that is only the second most troubling part. The fact that my child’s soul is in peril from the attempt by secular influence over his spirituality is far worse. The fact that supposedly faithful people think it’s a good idea leaves me dumbfounded.

Tris

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.” ~ Hypatia of Alexandria ~

97

You’re on the wrong message board, then.

98

Not participating is dissrupting? Quote me one instance where that has been percieved under these circumstances.

[/quote]

Would you agree that any minority member of the group should be allowed to compel the rest of the group to wait and observe while they peformed that member’s liturgies?
[/quote]

If it is deemed appropriate, absolutely. Are you saying we should deny them their rights because they are the minority? Certainly I havn’t said that.

Cite please. What ruling has said it was inapropriate. My inference of appropriateness was to cede the fact and to let you know that was not part of this argument. These instances were denied because it was considered in violation of SoCS, not because it wasn’t appropriate. When a student decides to do it it is inappropriate, but when an official (coach, principal) decides it is apporpriate it is unconstitutional?

No. They have simply been told that what allowing them to pray is unconstitutional in reference to SoCS.

Apparently you have no clue how impartant it is to " indulge some members in a bit of religious devotion". As petty as you make it sound is why i get defensive when others like to dissregard our first amendment right to freedom of religion.
Gaudere

[/quote]
I have no idea what you are talking about.
[/quote]

Fine then. I say it will be illegal for that judge to deny resources to that person or group.

It was just an anlogy per my preface. But how about this one? Students are given an art contest that all students are able to participate in. The winner gets to have their art placed upon covers of official books. The one who won had the word God in her art. She was required to take that word out, because it had God in it, before it could be published. It is well known that this is the artwork of an individual who won a contest and in reference to that would be known that the artists veiws do not necessarily represent that of the school. Again, it was not considered inappropriate, but considered as a violation of SoCS. All students had the opportunity but only one was chosen meritorious enough to win. yet she was denied that right because of religion. And yes that did happen.

Well the forums will still be here when you get time on your hands. And since tomndebb and I are still debating it I will await your response.

** Triskadecamus **

well I would highly dissagree with that and any intrusive attempt at control of my faith would land me and the offender in court in a heartbeat.

Umm I think you have the peramiters set forth by the first amendment backwards here. The government may not interefere or control religion, just because it is religion. And you do not have some kind of right to be protected from others speech. The government must allow freedom of speech and the exercise of religion. You can listen or walk away. The only time your rights are violated is if you are not permitted to walk away.

99

Students in a classroom are not permitted to walk away.

100

why not?