Church and State

[Arkady]

A couple questions for discussion:

(1) If it were your call, how would you set up the rule about government involvement in religion?
(2) Does your answer change at all depending on which religion we're talking about?

In my case, I'd have courts draw the line based on whether there is either an appearance or reality of government favoritism towards a certain religious organization or religious idea. As to appearance, could a reasonable person see something as favoritism or endorsement? For example, religious symbols on grave stones in a government cemetery would be fine, since a reasonable person would understand them to reflect the beliefs of the individual departed (or those who buried him), rather than the government. Since there would be lots of diversity of religious (and maybe even anti-religious) views, nobody could reasonably see it as expressing endorsement or favoritism. On the other hand, if the government put up a single monument on public ground --say to memorialize those servicemen who died in WWII-- and that monument expressed a theological principle or religious flavor (e.g,. inscribed with a prayer), that would be a problem, since a reasonable person could see it as government favoritism towards that theological principle.

I'd also want them to consider whether the involvement creates undue entanglements between church and state. If the government sets up access for religions to public property, for example, in a way that is procedurally neutral but requires a whole lot of interaction between government and church officials, that invites favoritism in practice if not in principle, and so I'd want courts striking down something that gets the two wound up together that way. However, on this one I'd favor courts erring on the side of leaving it up to legislators, and only stepping in if it was very clear the situation was inevitably going to result in favoritism.

As for that other question, this wouldn't change a bit, for me, based on which religion it was. I wouldn't, for example, disallow a singular monument that has a prayer referencing "Jesus" while allowing a singular monument with a prayer referencing "God." They're both theological concepts that exclude a portion of Americans, and the only difference is what portion is excluded, so I see no justification for allowing one and disallowing the other. And, on the flip side, if the context DOESN'T involve any favoritism or appearance of favoritism, I'd allow it, no matter what the content (e.g., if the family of some person buried in a government cemetery wants his tombstone to include a hymn to Satan, or a text saying all non-Muslims will burn in Hell, or any other religious notion that might offend many, that's fine).

One last bit of guidance I'd suggest, for others thinking about this: picture yourself on the other side of the divide. For example, before you say government should be allowed to privilege a certain religious display (e.g., having public school teachers lead their charges in a prayer), make sure you've considered the shoe being on the other foot (e.g., your local school system becomes majority-controlled by some religious group you consider offensive, so that the prayer in question is one that upsets your religious sensibilities and that you see as dangerous to your child's moral upbringing). We should only support rules that we'd want in place even if we were on the flip side of them.

 

[IndependentinWis]

A couple questions for discussion:

(1) If it were your call, how would you set up the rule about government involvement in religion?
(2) Does your answer change at all depending on which religion we're talking about?

In my case, I'd have courts draw the line based on whether there is either an appearance or reality of government favoritism towards a certain religious organization or religious idea. As to appearance, could a reasonable person see something as favoritism or endorsement? For example, religious symbols on grave stones in a government cemetery would be fine, since a reasonable person would understand them to reflect the beliefs of the individual departed (or those who buried him), rather than the government. Since there would be lots of diversity of religious (and maybe even anti-religious) views, nobody could reasonably see it as expressing endorsement or favoritism. On the other hand, if the government put up a single monument on public ground --say to memorialize those servicemen who died in WWII-- and that monument expressed a theological principle or religious flavor (e.g,. inscribed with a prayer), that would be a problem, since a reasonable person could see it as government favoritism towards that theological principle.

I'd also want them to consider whether the involvement creates undue entanglements between church and state. If the government sets up access for religions to public property, for example, in a way that is procedurally neutral but requires a whole lot of interaction between government and church officials, that invites favoritism in practice if not in principle, and so I'd want courts striking down something that gets the two wound up together that way. However, on this one I'd favor courts erring on the side of leaving it up to legislators, and only stepping in if it was very clear the situation was inevitably going to result in favoritism.

As for that other question, this wouldn't change a bit, for me, based on which religion it was. I wouldn't, for example, disallow a singular monument that has a prayer referencing "Jesus" while allowing a singular monument with a prayer referencing "God." They're both theological concepts that exclude a portion of Americans, and the only difference is what portion is excluded, so I see no justification for allowing one and disallowing the other. And, on the flip side, if the context DOESN'T involve any favoritism or appearance of favoritism, I'd allow it, no matter what the content (e.g., if the family of some person buried in a government cemetery wants his tombstone to include a hymn to Satan, or a text saying all non-Muslims will burn in Hell, or any other religious notion that might offend many, that's fine).

One last bit of guidance I'd suggest, for others thinking about this: picture yourself on the other side of the divide. For example, before you say government should be allowed to privilege a certain religious display (e.g., having public school teachers lead their charges in a prayer), make sure you've considered the shoe being on the other foot (e.g., your local school system becomes majority-controlled by some religious group you consider offensive, so that the prayer in question is one that upsets your religious sensibilities and that you see as dangerous to your child's moral upbringing). We should only support rules that we'd want in place even if we were on the flip side of them.

The government should stay out of religion entirely. Prayer at or before meetings will always leave someone out. If you ever read the what Thomas Jefferson said about this subject, you would know that many of the founding fathers felt the same. The present SCOTUS is controlled by two things, the GOP and Big Business. Their decisions have made them meaningless to a large portion of the American Public who no longer believe in their impartiality. It is a shame.

 

[as seen on tv]

as a secular person, i favor no particular "graven image"

I would permit

• "a moment of silence" in school or other public settings
• the use of public school facilities after hours for student clubs/organizations which have some religious affiliation
• the designation of churches, mosques, synogogues, etc as official polling places
• "in god we trust" on currency or monuments
• chaplains in the military; "on base" religious services.

I would object to

• statues or pictures of deities displayed on public property
• government "art" grants for individuals to glorify or denigrate a religious belief in statues, paintings, words, or performance art
• display of indpendentently produced "anti religion" art in government museums. private museums are perfectly okay
• requirements by the federal government to use direct tax dollars or fees to activities which are antithetical to a religious belief - such taxes cannot be used for abortions; the death penalty in capital crimes; pro or anti homosexual government policies (they cancel each other out); i would however permit tax dollars to be used for national defense, which inevitably involves killing.

 

[connieb]

A couple questions for discussion:

(1) If it were your call, how would you set up the rule about government involvement in religion?
(2) Does your answer change at all depending on which religion we're talking about?

In my case, I'd have courts draw the line based on whether there is either an appearance or reality of government favoritism towards a certain religious organization or religious idea. As to appearance, could a reasonable person see something as favoritism or endorsement? For example, religious symbols on grave stones in a government cemetery would be fine, since a reasonable person would understand them to reflect the beliefs of the individual departed (or those who buried him), rather than the government. Since there would be lots of diversity of religious (and maybe even anti-religious) views, nobody could reasonably see it as expressing endorsement or favoritism. On the other hand, if the government put up a single monument on public ground --say to memorialize those servicemen who died in WWII-- and that monument expressed a theological principle or religious flavor (e.g,. inscribed with a prayer), that would be a problem, since a reasonable person could see it as government favoritism towards that theological principle.

I'd also want them to consider whether the involvement creates undue entanglements between church and state. If the government sets up access for religions to public property, for example, in a way that is procedurally neutral but requires a whole lot of interaction between government and church officials, that invites favoritism in practice if not in principle, and so I'd want courts striking down something that gets the two wound up together that way. However, on this one I'd favor courts erring on the side of leaving it up to legislators, and only stepping in if it was very clear the situation was inevitably going to result in favoritism.

As for that other question, this wouldn't change a bit, for me, based on which religion it was. I wouldn't, for example, disallow a singular monument that has a prayer referencing "Jesus" while allowing a singular monument with a prayer referencing "God." They're both theological concepts that exclude a portion of Americans, and the only difference is what portion is excluded, so I see no justification for allowing one and disallowing the other. And, on the flip side, if the context DOESN'T involve any favoritism or appearance of favoritism, I'd allow it, no matter what the content (e.g., if the family of some person buried in a government cemetery wants his tombstone to include a hymn to Satan, or a text saying all non-Muslims will burn in Hell, or any other religious notion that might offend many, that's fine).

One last bit of guidance I'd suggest, for others thinking about this: picture yourself on the other side of the divide. For example, before you say government should be allowed to privilege a certain religious display (e.g., having public school teachers lead their charges in a prayer), make sure you've considered the shoe being on the other foot (e.g., your local school system becomes majority-controlled by some religious group you consider offensive, so that the prayer in question is one that upsets your religious sensibilities and that you see as dangerous to your child's moral upbringing). We should only support rules that we'd want in place even if we were on the flip side of them.

Gov't position on religion should only be stopped at forcing people to be a religion or punishing those of a certain religion. If representatives of gov't have a certain faith - they should be able to act that out in public, including part of their public capacity. As long as Gov't doesn't make you be a religion or make you not be your religion of choice, any acts or representations of religion are fine.

connie

 

[Arkady]

The government should stay out of religion entirely. Prayer at or before meetings will always leave someone out. If you ever read the what Thomas Jefferson said about this subject, you would know that many of the founding fathers felt the same. The present SCOTUS is controlled by two things, the GOP and Big Business. Their decisions have made them meaningless to a large portion of the American Public who no longer believe in their impartiality. It is a shame.

I agree that any kind of pre-government-meeting prayer that comes across as official (as opposed to individuals privately praying on their own) crosses the line. But where would you draw the line, exactly?

 

[Arkady]

as a secular person, i favor no particular "graven image"

I would permit

• "a moment of silence" in school or other public settings
• the use of public school facilities after hours for student clubs/organizations which have some religious affiliation
• the designation of churches, mosques, synogogues, etc as official polling places
• "in god we trust" on currency or monuments
• chaplains in the military; "on base" religious services.

I would object to

• statues or pictures of deities displayed on public property
• government "art" grants for individuals to glorify or denigrate a religious belief in statues, paintings, words, or performance art
• display of indpendentently produced "anti religion" art in government museums. private museums are perfectly okay
• requirements by the federal government to use direct tax dollars or fees to activities which are antithetical to a religious belief - such taxes cannot be used for abortions; the death penalty in capital crimes; pro or anti homosexual government policies (they cancel each other out); i would however permit tax dollars to be used for national defense, which inevitably involves killing.

I agree about the moment of silence, allowing the facilities to be used for organizations with religious affiliations (as long as its done in a non-discriminatory way, without too many entanglements), designating religious venues as polling places (again, as long as it's non-discriminatory). However, I don't want "in God we trust" on our money or monuments. Our motto is "e pluribus unum," and "In God We Trust" is inappropriate in that context. Would you allow "in Jesus we Trust" or "In Satan We Trust," or "We Trust in the Words of Mohammed, Allah's One True Profit," or "We Trust in no God"? If you'd be fine with any of those, if the majority used its power to push it through, then I can't fault you for inconsistency. But I'd object to all of them.

For religious services on base and chaplains, I'd allow for it, but would be very careful not to show any favoritism. The key, as I suggested in my post, is to make it so no reasonable person could see it as a governmental support or endorsement for anything religious. It would be OK, for example, for chaplains to be available to military personnel who want to use them, but not OK for the military to have a chaplain perform a prayer at a military academy graduation, where it could seem like a government endorsement of the contents of that prayer (which might include such controversial theological notions as there being only one god).

I disagree with the idea that government shouldn't be able to use taxes in a way antithetical to anyone's religious beliefs. That's unworkable. Even you get that, since you carve out a special exception for national defense, even though the use of violence that way runs afoul of many people's deeply held religious beliefs. That special exception is essentially the government saying some people's religious beliefs are important enough to accommodate, and other people's aren't. And that's exactly the kind of favoritism I don't want to see.

It isn't just national defense that poses a problem for your concept. There are some religions that object to secular activities on almost every day of the year. Strict Jews and Adventists think sundown Friday to sundown Saturday is sacred -- should their taxes be used to fund activities that profane that day? How about strict Christians of other denominations who think the same about Sunday? Strict Muslims would object to their tax dollars being used to fund activities that occur at time when people are supposed to be performing their prayers. Buddhists have Uposatha. Throw in enough holy weekdays, holy calendar days, etc., for all the various religions in this country, and just about every moment the government is spending our tax money is profaning SOMEBODY's holy time.

Similarly, what about government, say, using tax dollars to buy or subsidize beef or pork, or any meat, really. That's going to upset someone's religious sensibilities. How about government employing female teachers? The Bible forbids a woman to teach a man, yet doubtless plenty of our tax dollars go to making exactly that happen. The Bible also forbids women wearing men's clothing, but the government spends tax dollars to buy, say, uniforms for women that include trousers, which some orthodox religious people would object to. How about government using tax dollars to subsidie blood transfusions (offensive to Jehova's Witnesses), or psychiatric drugs (offensive to Scientologists), or, really just about any form of medicine (offensive to Christian Scientists).

A rule against government funding anything that any religion has a problem with is unworkable. So, if we try to impose that rule in some cases (no government funding for abortions), and not others (government funding of transfusions is fine), on religious grounds, then all government is doing is picking favored religious beliefs and disfavored ones, which it shouldn't be doing.

 

[Arkady]

Gov't position on religion should only be stopped at forcing people to be a religion or punishing those of a certain religion. If representatives of gov't have a certain faith - they should be able to act that out in public, including part of their public capacity. As long as Gov't doesn't make you be a religion or make you not be your religion of choice, any acts or representations of religion are fine.

connie

So, I just want to confirm what it sounds like you're saying. If, for example, a local public school teacher wanted to lead school kids in the recitation of a creed that rejected religion entirely ("I believe that there is no God..." etc.), that would be OK, so long as no one was forced to join a religion or was punished for their religion? If a town wanted to post a big sign saying "This is a Catholic Town," that would be OK, so long as people weren't actually forced to convert to Catholicism? If the government were to print out pro-Islamic propaganda, urging conversion, that would be OK, so long as nobody was forced to convert or punished for being of other religions? If tax dollars were used to buy a big golden sacred calf, and it was installed in the rotunda of the Capitol Building to encourage people to bow down to it, that would be fine, as long as they could choose not to do so?

 

[connieb]

So, I just want to confirm what it sounds like you're saying. If, for example, a local public school teacher wanted to lead school kids in the recitation of a creed that rejected religion entirely ("I believe that there is no God..." etc.), that would be OK, so long as no one was forced to join a religion or was punished for their religion? If a town wanted to post a big sign saying "This is a Catholic Town," that would be OK, so long as people weren't actually forced to convert to Catholicism? If the government were to print out pro-Islamic propaganda, urging conversion, that would be OK, so long as nobody was forced to convert or punished for being of other religions? If tax dollars were used to buy a big golden sacred calf, and it was installed in the rotunda of the Capitol Building to encourage people to bow down to it, that would be fine, as long as they could choose not to do so?

Forcing the kids to participate - would also be a violation. Her wanting to pray infront of the kids - not a problem. If you don't like how your representatives spend your money - you can vote them out. Otherwise, if the majority of people in the town approve of the purchase of the golden calf, its all good.

You see this is EXACTLY why our founders believed in a limited federal government -and a more powerful local government - so that like minded people - could move and collaborate together and only have to come together on the big issues, defense and currency,e tc. So, yes, if small town USA wants to purchase the golden calf, that should be their right, as long as they don't force anyone to go pray to it. If you don't like what they have done with your money - you are free to move and relocate to areas that more represent your beliefs. Those people who DO want to worship the golden calf though ALSO have that right. And your right to not have to see the calf, isn't more important than their right, to have if if they want it.

connie

 

[Arkady]

Forcing the kids to participate - would also be a violation. Her wanting to pray infront of the kids - not a problem. If you don't like how your representatives spend your money - you can vote them out. Otherwise, if the majority of people in the town approve of the purchase of the golden calf, its all good.

You see this is EXACTLY why our founders believed in a limited federal government -and a more powerful local government - so that like minded people - could move and collaborate together and only have to come together on the big issues, defense and currency,e tc. So, yes, if small town USA wants to purchase the golden calf, that should be their right, as long as they don't force anyone to go pray to it. If you don't like what they have done with your money - you are free to move and relocate to areas that more represent your beliefs. Those people who DO want to worship the golden calf though ALSO have that right. And your right to not have to see the calf, isn't more important than their right, to have if if they want it.

connie

What about if the kids weren't forced, but there was peer pressure? For example, the charismatic public school teacher gets a bunch of the popular kids to join an atheists club, and pretty soon everyone's joining in with the anti-religious creed, except a few kids who are getting shunned by their peers because of it?

As for the local vs. federal government issue, different Founders had different beliefs about that. Washington and Adams, who were federalists, were in favor of stronger federal government. The Democrats, like Jefferson, preferred stronger local government. The Constitution was an attempt to beef up the federal government in the wake of the failure of the articles of confederation, which had put more power in the hands of the states.

Anyway, would you permit the federal and state authorities to override the local ones? For example, if a locality wanted to put up, in local public buildings, displays of Sharia Law, to encourage locals to live by Muslim rules, would it be acceptable for the state to pass a law forbidding such displays? If a local public school board wanted to teach the Koran, would it be OK for the state to say no?

 

[connieb]

What about if the kids weren't forced, but there was peer pressure? For example, the charismatic public school teacher gets a bunch of the popular kids to join an atheists club, and pretty soon everyone's joining in with the anti-religious creed, except a few kids who are getting shunned by their peers because of it?

As for the local vs. federal government issue, different Founders had different beliefs about that. Washington and Adams, who were federalists, were in favor of stronger federal government. The Democrats, like Jefferson, preferred stronger local government. The Constitution was an attempt to beef up the federal government in the wake of the failure of the articles of confederation, which had put more power in the hands of the states.

Anyway, would you permit the federal and state authorities to override the local ones? For example, if a locality wanted to put up, in local public buildings, displays of Sharia Law, to encourage locals to live by Muslim rules, would it be acceptable for the state to pass a law forbidding such displays? If a local public school board wanted to teach the Koran, would it be OK for the state to say no?

If the teacher is actively persuading people to participate - that is a crossing the line. If kids are being bullied for not participating, then we need to examine if the anti-bullying programs are working and perhaps consider withdrawing our kids from the school. But, since I support charter schools, where parents have greater control over the content and nature of the education, support vouchers so parents can use their tax dollars to send their kids to schools of their choice and am an avid homeschooling supporter- I don't think its a big deal to draw your kid out of school and place them elsewhere that is more inline with your personal beliefs.

No, I would not permit federal or state authorities to override local ones, to the extent that they were not violating anyone's rights. I have no problem if the local government wanted to encourage people to live by Muslim rules... It is not however, a place, I would want to live. Those people would have presumably been elected by people who supported those platforms. If you wanted to live there and were into it, though, you would likely enjoy not having to deal with the outside influences of other religions and cultures.

You see, I think tolerance means - putting up with things you don't really like, and accepting that they exist, that people who believe those things have the right to express themselves and encourage others in those expressions. I simply don't have to like it or participate, and thus - I draw the line where people are expected or forced to participate.

connie

 

[Arkady]

If the teacher is actively persuading people to participate - that is a crossing the line. If kids are being bullied for not participating, then we need to examine if the anti-bullying programs are working and perhaps consider withdrawing our kids from the school. But, since I support charter schools, where parents have greater control over the content and nature of the education, support vouchers so parents can use their tax dollars to send their kids to schools of their choice and am an avid homeschooling supporter- I don't think its a big deal to draw your kid out of school and place them elsewhere that is more inline with your personal beliefs.

No, I would not permit federal or state authorities to override local ones, to the extent that they were not violating anyone's rights. I have no problem if the local government wanted to encourage people to live by Muslim rules... It is not however, a place, I would want to live. Those people would have presumably been elected by people who supported those platforms. If you wanted to live there and were into it, though, you would likely enjoy not having to deal with the outside influences of other religions and cultures.

You see, I think tolerance means - putting up with things you don't really like, and accepting that they exist, that people who believe those things have the right to express themselves and encourage others in those expressions. I simply don't have to like it or participate, and thus - I draw the line where people are expected or forced to participate.

connie

I'm all for tolerance. If I lived in a community that became, say, heavily Muslim, I'd happily put up with Muslim displays, and hearing the call to prayer coming from the mosques, etc. And I wouldn't mind in the least if there were big Islamic scripture readings and prayers in public places. Where I'd draw the line is if they tried to hijack our shared government to promote their religion. I wouldn't want public school teachers leading their charges in prayer at school. I wouldn't want Sharia given special place of public prominence over other religious laws, etc. I'd draw the distinction between displays of faith that communicate an INDIVIDUAL or PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONAL embrace of the faith, and displays of faith that communicate a government endorsement or promotion of the faith. And I don't think it's much of a solution to say, "well, if you don't like the religion the local government is promoting, move." People often have deep roots in their community, as well as property ownership. They shouldn't have to choose between having their shared government promote a religion they object to or giving all that up to relocate.

 

[connieb]

I'm all for tolerance. If I lived in a community that became, say, heavily Muslim, I'd happily put up with Muslim displays, and hearing the call to prayer coming from the mosques, etc. And I wouldn't mind in the least if there were big Islamic scripture readings and prayers in public places. Where I'd draw the line is if they tried to hijack our shared government to promote their religion. I wouldn't want public school teachers leading their charges in prayer at school. I wouldn't want Sharia given special place of public prominence over other religious laws, etc. I'd draw the distinction between displays of faith that communicate an INDIVIDUAL or PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONAL embrace of the faith, and displays of faith that communicate a government endorsement or promotion of the faith. And I don't think it's much of a solution to say, "well, if you don't like the religion the local government is promoting, move." People often have deep roots in their community, as well as property ownership. They shouldn't have to choose between having their shared government promote a religion they object to or giving all that up to relocate.

Gov't IS the people. You can not separate the two. The people who make up Gov't have a right to pray before meetings if that is wha tthey want to do , put the Christmas tree up in the square, etc. If you do not like it - YOU are free to vote for other people, and if you are in the minority - free to move where you are the majority. If you have such deep roots you are likely partial to the traditions of the community.

 

[Alinvegas]

A couple questions for discussion:

(1) If it were your call, how would you set up the rule about government involvement in religion?
(2) Does your answer change at all depending on which religion we're talking about?

In my case, I'd have courts draw the line based on whether there is either an appearance or reality of government favoritism towards a certain religious organization or religious idea. As to appearance, could a reasonable person see something as favoritism or endorsement? For example, religious symbols on grave stones in a government cemetery would be fine, since a reasonable person would understand them to reflect the beliefs of the individual departed (or those who buried him), rather than the government. Since there would be lots of diversity of religious (and maybe even anti-religious) views, nobody could reasonably see it as expressing endorsement or favoritism. On the other hand, if the government put up a single monument on public ground --say to memorialize those servicemen who died in WWII-- and that monument expressed a theological principle or religious flavor (e.g,. inscribed with a prayer), that would be a problem, since a reasonable person could see it as government favoritism towards that theological principle.

I'd also want them to consider whether the involvement creates undue entanglements between church and state. If the government sets up access for religions to public property, for example, in a way that is procedurally neutral but requires a whole lot of interaction between government and church officials, that invites favoritism in practice if not in principle, and so I'd want courts striking down something that gets the two wound up together that way. However, on this one I'd favor courts erring on the side of leaving it up to legislators, and only stepping in if it was very clear the situation was inevitably going to result in favoritism.

As for that other question, this wouldn't change a bit, for me, based on which religion it was. I wouldn't, for example, disallow a singular monument that has a prayer referencing "Jesus" while allowing a singular monument with a prayer referencing "God." They're both theological concepts that exclude a portion of Americans, and the only difference is what portion is excluded, so I see no justification for allowing one and disallowing the other. And, on the flip side, if the context DOESN'T involve any favoritism or appearance of favoritism, I'd allow it, no matter what the content (e.g., if the family of some person buried in a government cemetery wants his tombstone to include a hymn to Satan, or a text saying all non-Muslims will burn in Hell, or any other religious notion that might offend many, that's fine).

One last bit of guidance I'd suggest, for others thinking about this: picture yourself on the other side of the divide. For example, before you say government should be allowed to privilege a certain religious display (e.g., having public school teachers lead their charges in a prayer), make sure you've considered the shoe being on the other foot (e.g., your local school system becomes majority-controlled by some religious group you consider offensive, so that the prayer in question is one that upsets your religious sensibilities and that you see as dangerous to your child's moral upbringing). We should only support rules that we'd want in place even if we were on the flip side of them.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It seems Lefty forgets the part after the comma.

 

[Arkady]

Gov't IS the people. You can not separate the two. The people who make up Gov't have a right to pray before meetings if that is wha tthey want to do , put the Christmas tree up in the square, etc. If you do not like it - YOU are free to vote for other people, and if you are in the minority - free to move where you are the majority. If you have such deep roots you are likely partial to the traditions of the community.

We regularly draw a line about where government workers can do things. For example, someone who works for the government is permitted to make political fund-raising calls from private property, but not from his public office. That limited exclusion from the public office doesn't meaningfully infringe on his first amendment right to free speech. In the same way, if you're permitted to pray in nearly every context, but not the limited context of a public meeting, that is not a meaningful infringement on your first amendment right to free exercise of religion.

It's the same way with, say, the second amendment. You're allowed to bear arms, but if you work as a secretary in the White House, I'd really recommend not trying to find out if you're allowed to carry that gun to work.

 

[Arkady]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It seems Lefty forgets the part after the comma.

Did you have an answer to the questions?

 

[as seen on tv]

I agree about the moment of silence, allowing the facilities to be used for organizations with religious affiliations (as long as its done in a non-discriminatory way, without too many entanglements), designating religious venues as polling places (again, as long as it's non-discriminatory). However, I don't want "in God we trust" on our money or monuments. Our motto is "e pluribus unum," and "In God We Trust" is inappropriate in that context. Would you allow "in Jesus we Trust" or "In Satan We Trust," or "We Trust in the Words of Mohammed, Allah's One True Profit," or "We Trust in no God"? If you'd be fine with any of those, if the majority used its power to push it through, then I can't fault you for inconsistency. But I'd object to all of them.

For religious services on base and chaplains, I'd allow for it, but would be very careful not to show any favoritism. The key, as I suggested in my post, is to make it so no reasonable person could see it as a governmental support or endorsement for anything religious. It would be OK, for example, for chaplains to be available to military personnel who want to use them, but not OK for the military to have a chaplain perform a prayer at a military academy graduation, where it could seem like a government endorsement of the contents of that prayer (which might include such controversial theological notions as there being only one god).

I disagree with the idea that government shouldn't be able to use taxes in a way antithetical to anyone's religious beliefs. That's unworkable. Even you get that, since you carve out a special exception for national defense, even though the use of violence that way runs afoul of many people's deeply held religious beliefs. That special exception is essentially the government saying some people's religious beliefs are important enough to accommodate, and other people's aren't. And that's exactly the kind of favoritism I don't want to see.

It isn't just national defense that poses a problem for your concept. There are some religions that object to secular activities on almost every day of the year. Strict Jews and Adventists think sundown Friday to sundown Saturday is sacred -- should their taxes be used to fund activities that profane that day? How about strict Christians of other denominations who think the same about Sunday? Strict Muslims would object to their tax dollars being used to fund activities that occur at time when people are supposed to be performing their prayers. Buddhists have Uposatha. Throw in enough holy weekdays, holy calendar days, etc., for all the various religions in this country, and just about every moment the government is spending our tax money is profaning SOMEBODY's holy time.

Similarly, what about government, say, using tax dollars to buy or subsidize beef or pork, or any meat, really. That's going to upset someone's religious sensibilities. How about government employing female teachers? The Bible forbids a woman to teach a man, yet doubtless plenty of our tax dollars go to making exactly that happen. The Bible also forbids women wearing men's clothing, but the government spends tax dollars to buy, say, uniforms for women that include trousers, which some orthodox religious people would object to. How about government using tax dollars to subsidie blood transfusions (offensive to Jehova's Witnesses), or psychiatric drugs (offensive to Scientologists), or, really just about any form of medicine (offensive to Christian Scientists).

A rule against government funding anything that any religion has a problem with is unworkable. So, if we try to impose that rule in some cases (no government funding for abortions), and not others (government funding of transfusions is fine), on religious grounds, then all government is doing is picking favored religious beliefs and disfavored ones, which it shouldn't be doing.

"in god we trust" is grandfathered in, as a legacy/traditional government position. the founding fathers could have (and would have) prohibited this if they felt it violated the constitutional provisions against establishment of a national religion.
regarding declarations of war, and the sensibilities of the ultra religious who object to everything from shopping to liquor sales to dancing on various days of the week - find another country where your beliefs are the law of the land.

 

[Arkady]

"in god we trust" is grandfathered in, as a legacy/traditional government position. the founding fathers could have (and would have) prohibited this if they felt it violated the constitutional provisions against establishment of a national religion.
regarding declarations of war, and the sensibilities of the ultra religious who object to everything from shopping to liquor sales to dancing on various days of the week - find another country where your beliefs are the law of the land.

"In God We Trust" is a relatively late arrival. It's "grandfathered" in the same sense as, say, interning people in prison camps based on their race is grandfathered in.

Also, the Constitutional provision says nothing about "establishment of a national religion." That's the Fox News paraphrase. The actual text is about making laws respecting an establishment of religion. And I just don't see how you can allow government authority to be used to promulgate an article of faith like the idea that there's one god that we should trust in. If that's permissible, I can't think of an intellectually rigorous basis on which to block promulgating other articles of faith, like, say, having government print up evangelical books urging people to convert to the Protestant faith, or something like that. A suppose that one solution would be to say to Catholics, Jews, etc., that if they don't like their government being hijacked to promote Protestantism, they can leave and move to Ireland or Israel or something. But that seems like a really lousy way to run a country.