The myth of church-state separation

Aug 30 07:05 UTC 2003

             
             David Limbaugh 
             August 30, 2003 

                    Recently I have
                    discussed the
                    issues involved in
                    the controversy
             surrounding Alabama Chief
             Justice Roy Moore. Before
             finally leaving the subject, I
             want to address this
             nettlesome notion of the
             separation of church and
             state.

              Often the sword of separation
             is used to smother, rather than
             promote religious liberty.
             There is nothing in the
             Constitution mandating a
             separation of church and
             state. (The phrase originated
             in a letter from Thomas
             Jefferson.) When you hear
             people talking about the
             supposed "separation of
             church and state," what they
             usually mean is "The
             Establishment Clause of the
             First Amendment requires a
             separation." But it doesn't.

              Aside from the fact that the
             Establishment Clause has
             been erroneously extended to
             apply to the states as well as
             Congress, let's look how far
             the scope of "establishment"
             has been stretched on both
             the state and federal levels.
             It's darn near criminal.

              The Framers meant that
             Congress couldn't establish a
             national church. They did not
             intend to forbid every little
             activity on government
             property or partially funded
             by the government. Justice
             Moore's monument flap is just
             the tip of the iceberg.

              The courts are using the
             Establishment Clause to
             scrub Christianity entirely
             from the public square,
             including public schools. Their
             restrictions on religious
             freedom in schools illustrate
             the obscene extremes to
             which the law has been
             extended.

              The separationists contend
             that public schools, because
             they are funded by federal
             and state money, cannot
             engage in activities that are deemed an
             endorsement of a religion. Just the slightest nod
             toward a religion will be enough to trigger an
             Establishment Clause violation. 

              Consider the case in which public high school
             students held their own two-step election, first, to
             decide whether a student address, possibly
             containing a prayer, could be delivered at a football
             game, and second, which student would deliver it.
             The Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that just by
             permitting such an election the state was violating
             the Establishment Clause. 

              Now seriously, just how far do we have to suspend
             our disbelief to conclude that the Framers intended
             to prohibit such an election merely facilitated -- not
             initiated -- by a public school?

              Well, first we have to ignore that the First
             Amendment restricted the federal Congress only.
             Second, we have to disregard that it also prohibited
             Congress from intruding on the states' right to
             establish religion if they so chose. Third, we have to
             assume that a local school, which happens to
             receive funding from both the state and federal
             governments, is deemed to be an extension of those
             governments, keeping in mind that there were no
             such government funded and controlled schools at
             the time of the nation's founding.

              Fourth, we have to find that the students' voluntary
             action to elect a speaker to deliver a statement that
             might or might not contain a prayer, with no
             involvement from the school beyond permitting the
             election, should be imputed to the state or federal
             governments -- as if they are the ones choosing to
             say the prayer. 

              Fifth, we have to conclude that the reading of the
             prayer itself is tantamount to establishing a federal
             or state religion -- notwithstanding that there are
             thousands of other government-run schools
             throughout the United States that would be
             completely unaffected by the prayer and no other
             part of the nation would be affected by it. (How can
             we conclude that a single public school in a single
             community in a single state, by merely permitting
             and not encouraging its students to choose, on their
             own, to read a prayer at a football game, constitutes
             the establishment of a particular denomination as
             the national or state religion?)

              Sixth, we have to assume that you can ignore all
             these obstacles, even though in the very process
             you are emasculating that other critically important
             religion clause of the First Amendment, the Free
             Exercise Clause, which also guarantees our
             religious liberty.

              By precluding the student-led prayer through these
             outrageous legal fictions and convoluted reasoning,
             the Court sanctioned the school's encroachment on
             the freedom of students to worship as they pleased
             -- thwarting the very purpose of both First
             Amendment religion clauses.

              The point here is not that it is desirable for the
             government to endorse religious activities. Rather it
             is that courts have made the law up as they've gone
             along, completing mucking up Establishment
             Clause jurisprudence, and, in the name of
             protecting religious freedom, have greatly
             suppressed it.

response 2 of 92:

Aug 30 09:21 UTC 2003

Well then how the hell do you expect to live in the same political
entity with the author of #0?  Do you expect some right to impose your
view on the author of #0?  How so and on what basis?  Other than merely
prohibiting you from inflicting your views on all other citizens how
does the view of #0 directly have anything to do with your view?  You
can either kill him, or structure a political system where you can live
with each other, yes?  To do nothing is granted under his view, how
about yours?

response 4 of 92:

Aug 30 15:19 UTC 2003

The opinions expressed by the author of #0 are completely irrelevant, as the
Supreme Court has interpreted the framers' intent behind the establishment
clause to be the prohibition of a sociopolitical climate which favors the
adherents of any one religious belief system over any other.  Since atheism
obviously qualifies as a religious belief system, the courts have ruled in
a manner consistent with that interpretation.  The extent it is unpopular with
the protestant majority is a perfect example of why this interpretation is
so important to sustain.

response 6 of 92:

Aug 30 15:36 UTC 2003

Re 2.  Individuals with all kinds of minority or radical views are
perfectly free to advocate those beliefs and attempt to persuade others.
It certainly doesn't guarantee that the minority view prevail.

response 8 of 92:

Aug 30 20:43 UTC 2003

Think how Limbaugh (#0) would scream if the religious expression were
totally Muslim because of a local majority of Muslims on the school board and
among the students. 

response 10 of 92:

Aug 31 23:40 UTC 2003

#0 would also seem to suggest that it'd be okay for the government to fund a
religion, make laws based on its teachings, and tailor public spaces to make
only people of that religion feel welcome, as long as it's never referred to
with the magic words "official state religion."  Obviously this would be an
established state church in every way except the name.

response 12 of 92:

Sep 1 05:34 UTC 2003

You are only describing extracurricular and *independent* religious
activities of a sect for members of that sect. I have no problem with that
either, so long as the facilities are available and can be shared equally
by all those wishing to use them for non-profit purposes. However this
was about secular activities within the academic context for all students.
That is what is unconstitutional.  

response 14 of 92:

Sep 2 06:13 UTC 2003

Displays of majority religious symbolism on public property or at public
functions can be seen as (and in fact sometimes is) intimidation. It
demonstrates a governmental preferences for particular religion(s). It
does not make it better by saying that other creeds "may" display their
symbolism as different creeds have different tenets or preferences or
resources in that regard. There is no way to enforce equality in religious
advertising - it would be bizarre to try. 

The blanket prohibition of governmental exhibition of religious
preferences in any form, provided by the first amendment, solves all of
these problems at once.

response 16 of 92:

Sep 2 14:18 UTC 2003

Three of the 10 Commandments have the force of civil law in most 
societies: don't murder, don't steal, and don't commit perjury.  

(Another one, don't fuck someone else's spouse, is the law in many 
societies, although it is routinely broken by people for various 
reasons -- true love, career advancement, revenge, nice eyes, nice ass, 
nice tits, I'm bored, he's the President of the US, she's a willing 
young intern, the First Lady is frigid, etc., etc. -- often without a 
trace of regret until they get caught.)

Two of the 10 are standard-issue oriental philosophy: honor your 
parents and don't desire other people's stuff.  Healthy for you 
psychologically, maybe, but hardly enforceable as civil law.

The other four -- put all the other gods behind YHVH in line, don't 
make or worship images, don't work on whatever day you call the 
Sabbath, and don't use YHVH's name frivolously -- are Jewish religious 
strictures, later adopted by Christians.  Nobody, not even bap, can 
make an intelligent case that any of this should be posted in a court 
of law.  

response 18 of 92:

Sep 2 17:25 UTC 2003

Why do you think that the founding fathers specifically named religion as
the subject that government may not promote, while specifically allowing
all other peaceable forms of address? Gay pride marches and Red Cross
symbolism are Constitutional because they do not promote a religiion. You
are downplaying the power of religions to raise people's passions, I presume
in order to try to sneak some in under the door, so to speak. 

Our laws stem from many sources. So did Judeao-Christian laws. It  doesn't
matter what they "stem" from - what matters is that our laws were developed
and applied in a secular form applicable to people of any mythological
persuasion. 

response 20 of 92:

Sep 2 17:36 UTC 2003

Re #17: The government doesn't fund gay pride marches.

The idea here is that the government should remain neutral on the
subject of religion.  When the government starts paying to erect
monuments to a specific religion, it's no longer neutral; it's
expressing support for that religion over others.

response 22 of 92:

Sep 3 04:34 UTC 2003

Which is why they have the right to enforce "time, place and manner"
restrictions, though without regard to the content of the march, rally or
protest.

response 24 of 92:

Sep 4 17:08 UTC 2003

And of course the author's comments aren't inflammatory, although they include
"fundamentalist" and "radical" in a sweeping fashion...