Which came first the chicken or the egg?
Which came first the religious bull-in-a-china-closet or religious discrimination in America?
"Minn. legislator wants Jesus out of Senate Prayers" First I thought, "Come on!" However, when I read the story and understood that a Baptist preacher received an invitation that requested the prayer be non-denominational and he then proceeded to mention Jesus not once, not twice, but THREE times, I understood the Jewish legislator's desire. I wonder why Christians too often forget the Golden Rule. I'm not saying the preacher needed to deny his belief, but only to consider how he'd feel if a Muslim got up and mentioned Allah three times. Perhaps manners need to temper the passions of the bull-in-a-china-closet Christian.
In another story today, a parent is angry because Bibles are available upon request at his child's school in the Bible Belt. This time I could not side with the angry party. As long as Bibles are not forced on anyone, why can't a Bible be available in the school library? It is after all merely a book to those who do not believe.
The legislator, the parent, and the ACLU are arguing that Christ and the Bible are not allowed because of the First Amendment. First I thought, "Wait a minute. Freedom of Speech? That covers books!" Then I realized they meant the Freedom of Religion. They are in the same Amendment, but too many think that Freedom of Religion (or lack thereof) trumps Freedom of Speech. It doesn't. They are equal rights in the same Amendment. In fact, the "separation of church and state" is a relatively new concept in American jurisprudence. It is NOT found in the Constitution.
The first place in which “separation between church and state” was ever mentioned was in a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson (TJ) on January 1, 1802, in response to a letter from the Danbury Baptists. The Danbury Baptists were a small minority religious group in Connecticut. They were fearful that history would repeat itself and they would be forced to change denominations as they had been in England. TJ assured them that they would not be persecuted or made to change denominations because of the “wall of separation between church and state.” The phrase was not mentioned again for 76 years and then it was used to uphold a conviction of Bigamy against a Mormon defendant. TJ’s letter and the phrase was not mentioned again for 69 years.
After that the phrase was used in:
1947 to allow subsidies for transportation to any accredited school even if it was religious,
1948 to disallow public school children from having religious electives,
1952 to disallow censorship of movies because they offended religious belief,
1961 to disallow religious tests of applicants for public offices,
1962 to disallow prayer in school,
1963 to disallow Bible reading in school,
1968 to allow the teaching of evolution,
1980 to disallow the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools (because they might obey),
1985 to disallow moments of silence in schools if motivation was to encourage prayer,
1987 to disallow the requirement of teaching creation when evolution was taught,
1989 to disallow nativity scenes in government buildings,
1992 to disallow clergy from praying at graduations,
1993 to allow animal sacrifice for adherents to Santeria
I am in favor of separation of church and state, but isn't it lunacy that the First Amendment has been mainly used in the past 52 years to discriminate against Christian activities while allowing something as abhorrent as animal sacrifice for a minority religion? Today Freedom of Religion seems to mean freedom of religions other than Christianity. Christians can’t put up a poster that says, “Don’t kill. Don’t steal.” Yet another religion has the right to kill animals as a form of worship. Lunacy!
Every person "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." ~ George Washington in a letter in 1789
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." ~ Patrick Henry
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” ~George Washington in his Farewell Address
On February 29, 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 471, that “this is a Christian nation.”
In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court in Zorach stated, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people…. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”
Ann and I have known each other for more than 9 years. I don’t know if Ann will remember this, but I never forgot. Shortly after we met, someone made fun of me for being a Christian. Before I could respond Ann, a non-Christian, said sternly, “Leave her alone! She's free to believe what she wants!” I’m not saying you have to believe in God or in Jesus Christ, but do what Ann did and defend my right to believe. And Christians, let's be respectful to those of other faiths and to those who claim no faith at all.
I think you put too much emphasis on the phrase “separation of church and state,” as if that alone is the basis of the court decisions you mention. The phrase is but a metaphor to describe the principle reflected by the Constitution (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, and (3), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office.
ReplyDeleteSome try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. 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.” Note, too, that as President he vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national church, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause.
The Constitution and particularly the First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Take care quoting the founders on religion, as fake quotations abound. Among them is the one you attribute to Patrick Henry. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/07/fake_patrick_henry_quote_found.php#more
From Shannon: Thanks for your comment. I think I made it clear that I am in favor of separation of church and state... actually, it goes beyond that. I believe it is absolutely necessary for a free society. My main point is that it is time for people of all faiths to respect people of other faiths and of no faith and for those who claim no faith to respect those of faith. I think the story I shared about Ann (a person who claims no faith) was a perfect example of this idea. As far as "fake quotes" - history has been re-written over and over and over throughout the centuries and throughout the world. We are merely the latest victims this age-old trend. Thanks again for reading!
ReplyDeleteFrom Shannon: I asked Ann last night if she recalled the incident that I shared at the end of this post. She has absolutely no recollection of it and asked me to tell her the whole story. I, on the other hand, will never forget her kindness to me that day. For me, it took her out of the realm of "acquaintance" and put her into the realm of "friend"... thanks again, Ann!
ReplyDelete"Today Freedom of Religion seems to mean freedom of religions other than Christianity. Christians can’t put up a poster that says, “Don’t kill. Don’t steal.” Yet another religion has the right to kill animals as a form of worship. Lunacy!"
ReplyDeleteI just have an issue with this quote, well mostly this one from your entire post. The issue here is the way you worded this to seem like our country is now anti-Christian. Christians can put up a poster that says "Don't kill. Don't steal". (I have to assume you are referring to the 10 Commandments) They just can't put them up in a court house or school. Just like the animal sacrifices you were referring to cannot happen in a court house or at a school.
That whole quote read from you to sound like "I am in favor of separation of church and state (but not really)"