Wall of Separation, or The Neutral Zone?

Great Debates
21

Hamlet: Though I understand the distinction you’re trying to draw, I believe that in practice, there is little or no difference between the paradigms. The “wall” was always much more permeable than it sounds. For instance, it was during the years when the “wall” was the prevailing notion that the courts issued opinions approving congressional chaplains, “In God We Trust,” and any number of other related practices. At the same time, the “neutrality” notion is actually much less accomodationist than many advocates of faith-based government would like. A great example of that is the football prayer case, where a plausible (but anti-factual) case could be made that the school was neutrally allowing students to say whatever they wanted.

Maybe the best example that there isn’t much practical difference is Lynch v. Donneley (sp?), the case involving the city Christmas display. Burger’s majority applies the traditional Lemon analysis and decides that it has a secular purpose oif recognizing history and such, so it passes Establishment scrutiny. But O’Connor issues a concurring opinion using her “neutrality” or “endorsement” reasoning, and reaches the exact same conclusion.

Now you’d certainly reach a different outcome in a lot of cases by following Scalia’s theory that actual coercion is required for an Establishment violation, but that’s a different kettle of fish altogether. In terms of wall vs. neutrality, I just don’t see much difference.
Nitpick for Poly: The Second Amendment has never been incorporated through the 14th Amendment to to apply against the states. It remains one of the few “unincorporated” portions of the Bill of Rights, though the Supreme Court has not taken the opportunity to rule on that issue–just the lower courts.

22

—How is allowing a moment of prayer an endorsement?—

I’m one that takes the position that it is, EVEN if it is a moment of silence. In my opinion, if they want to give us an extra minute, ostensibly to allow people to get in smoe extra time for prayer, they should cut a minute out of the school day entirely.

That gives people the MOST amount of freedom to do whatever they want. They can gather in whatever groups they please, say whatever prayers they please, out loud or in silence, without fear of disrupting the school day or even other people’s preference for observances (silent or no) or non-observance.

—It seems to me that if you don’t allow it than that is an endorsement of atheism.—

Seems to me a pretty odd idea of what “atheism” is, even if what you mean is the positive sense of believing that there is no God.

Is brushing your teeth an endorsement of “atheism”? Is watching Will and Grace “endorsing atheism”? In short, is performing an activity which doesn’t involve overt god worship, in your opinion, an endorsement of the lack of belief in god? Or is it just an activity that people are performing, like any other civic activity?

—Much more forgiving, and, it appears gaining more support, is the Neutrality Zone, which holds that Congress and the State’s must remain neutral on matter of religion. This interpretation allows school vouchers, and neutral holiday displays.—

That’s a strange bit of linguistic subterfuge. What I see there is the idea that the state must remain neutral in the face of people wanting to use its resources to promote their religion. That doesn’t strike me as “neutral” in any meaningful sense.

Always remember that whatever the government does, it does by taking money and authority away from the people. There’s no reason why anyone should need the government’s aid to put up holiday displays and the like: the only reasons I can think of that one would do this is a) because people think that government authority is the head of civic community b) people blindly worship civic authority and think that everything “important” must be overseen and controlled and at least tacitly approved of by it b) they want OTHER people to pay for religious displays even when they wouldn’t have voluntarily.