Can the USA promote religion according to the constitution? This is a heated subject, which continues to arise. For instance,
• A three-judge panel of the court has upheld the Elmbrook School District's argument that holding graduation ceremonies at a church because of space and comfort for those attending did not promote religion. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1486184
Although I agree with the decision, I don’t with the rationale. For one thing, wherever Elmwood might have decided to hold its graduation, a philosophy or religion would have been present, even among those groups that reject the label of “religion.” If the graduation was held at the Secular Humanist Society, it could equally be argued that Elmwood was promoting the religion of Secular Humanism. After all, this belief system has its own values based upon the belief that humanity has the final say.
Even if Elmwood had merely rented a commercial hall, it could still be argued that this business is promoting the capitalistic ideal, which it is, at least indirectly!
Every decision and law implies morality and value judgments, unless decisions are merely about reacting animalisticly and mindlessly. Is it possible then for the State to not promote religion? Definitely not! Every law must be justified religiously/morally. It has to serve the moral ideal of the State, even if it’s just in terms of “the welfare of the people.”
However, we have different beliefs about the “welfare of the people.” Whose view is right? Secularists believe that there should be almost total freedom in the area of sexual expression and family. Christians believe that certain forms of sexuality will ultimately destroy the State and family. Secularists favor State control of education, while Christians would have the locality and family have greater input into the process.
Too often however, the Secularists define “religion” in a biased way in order to eliminate certain groups from the conversational table. They define Muslims, Hindus and Christians as “religions,” while they conveniently dissociate themselves from this label. This allows them to maintain their influence within the public forum while eliminating the competition.
These issues have become increasingly contentious as the budget and domain of State control has increased. Relations between church and State seem to be in the center of the conflict. Conflict has centered upon the question of the church’s role beyond its own pews.
Originally, this relationship had been defined by the First Amendment:
• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
What does it mean that Congress should not pass a law establishing a religion? For almost two hundred years, it meant just that – not passing a law making one denomination the State religion – and the vast majority was very happy with this separation.
Clearly, it was never understood that the Separation Clause would prevent the Federal Government from endorsing religious principles. For example, George Washington’s “Thanksgiving Day Proclamation” (1789) read:
• It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness…
In fact, the Founding Fathers – a number of whom weren’t even Christians – all seemingly believed that the Biblical faith was essential to the well-being of their nation. However, things have changed. In the US Supreme Court 1947 decision Everson v. Board of Education, the majority ruled:
• The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means a t least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another…The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. (Quoted from Wayne Grudem’s Politics According to the Bible, 34)
While the “establishment clause” forbade setting up a state religion, there was never any mention of the government not “aid[ing]” religion. Such an understanding would and does constitute unjust state favoritism of groups not formally considered religions. For instance, in NYC, a bill has been pushed to prevent churches from renting space at public schools. Meanwhile, this bill would not prohibit atheist or AA groups from renting space. This amounts to a violation of the principle of “equal access.”
Similarly, the US Supreme Court decision of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) ruled that government actions,
• Must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. (34)
Sadly, these faulty interpretations have been used hypocritically to silence the Christian voice in favor of a militaristic, totalitarian secular voice, which has promoted “values clarification,” religious pluralism, moral relativity, sexual freedom, and the diminishing of family influence. Even home-schooling and whatever is deemed politically incorrect have come under attack. It is ironic that the very “separation clause” that had guaranteed that the State would make no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion, would now be used to restrict parental rights to raise their children according to their faith.
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThat the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
You seem to equate government neutrality regarding religion with government promotion of humanism/secularism, which you then also equate with religion. Do you mean to argue that government neutrality is impossible? If so, I suppose you figure the only remaining question is which religion government will favor. Do you see the government necessarily having to make such a choice?
To show how far we’ve declined, let's consider the words of President Lincoln in his Proclamation for a National Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, March 30, 1863:
ReplyDeleteWe have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us, then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.
-Source: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler. Full text can be viewed at: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/fast.htm.
To show how far we’ve declined, let's consider the words of President Lincoln in his Proclamation for a National Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, March 30, 1863:
ReplyDeleteWe have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us, then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.
-Source: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler. Full text can be viewed at: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/fast.htm.
To show how far we’ve declined, let's consider the words of President Lincoln in his Proclamation for a National Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, March 30, 1863:
ReplyDeleteWe have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us, then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.
-Source: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler. Full text can be viewed at: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/fast.htm.
Andrey,
ReplyDeleteVery appropriate material. Evidently, our forefathers understood the "separation clause" in a very different way than the secularists of today, who are trying to use it to marginalize the Christian faith.
Doug,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful response.
Yes, I do believe that neutrality is impossible. Everything that a government does is necessarily based upon values.
However, since we all - with our diverse beliefs - have to live together harmoniously, government needs to try to provide more equal access, more balance, a more level playing field, a greater willingness to not engage in viewpoint discrimination.
Frankly though, I am very pessimistic. The glue that has held this nation together is dissolving and I don't think it can be salvaged. Levels of contempt and polarization sky-rocket, while moral relativism is being promoted more and more. The arrival of Islam can only complicate things further.
My hope is in Jesus alone!