There's been quite a lot of furor arising over the recent federal court decision to strike down the National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional. I'll leave the AU to explain why it's the only fair decision. I want to address the core issue here today.
One of the biggest areas of misunderstanding between believers and non-believers is the issue of the Separation of Church and State. Believers often think that it’s atheists trying to outlaw the practice of their faith. Non-theists feel put upon by the incessant references to faith strewn liberally throughout society, and even within some of our laws.
What many don’t seem to understand is that it’s actually not about religion at all. It’s a civil rights issue. The Black Civil Rights movement under Dr. Martin Luther King was not about getting African Americans special priviledges – it was about providing equal rights for all Americans, no matter their color.
So, too, is the movement to reinforce, actually, to return to, the Constitutionally mandated separation of the powers of church and state as so strongly defined by our forefathers, many of whom first came to this country to escape religious persecution! Wikipedia has an excellent article discussing the historical aspects of the issue.
First, of course, it’s very important to separate the emotional rhetoric used 
by individuals of both sides and focus instead on the intentions of the two group points of view.
I’ll begin with the non-theists. I’ve mentioned the organization ‘Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, (website). Led by Rev. Barry Lynn, an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ, AU’s core goal is true religious freedom for all.
About AU
We come from all backgrounds and represent all fifty states. In our work, we seek to preserve and protect religious freedom for every single American and have been dedicated to this since 1947.
Our Mission Statement
Americans United (AU) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.
In other words, this organization is comprised of many believers, and a number of non-believers, dedicated to working together. To permitting each and every person the freedom to practice the faith which calls to them – or not practice, as they wish.
To making sure that no qualified person is denied a job, housing, serving their country, raising their children, receiving health care, etc, based on what religion they follow. It’s a group which respects the common shared humanity of each person – and is convinced, as were our forefathers, that ‘no test of faith’ be given before one is permitted … well, anything!
What all this does NOT mean is that AU and like-minded people are trying to prohibit the free expression of any faith. That is a part of the individual rhetoric we must not accept. If any faith is given priority standing over any other when it comes to anything involving the government, then by default, all others are relegated to secondary status. You can't say "Johnny is my favorite child" without making his siblings standing be less than his.
If we switch the terms for color with faith, it becomes very apparent just how ‘wrong’ it is to legislate such preference.
Imagine government run Christian-only 'public' bathrooms. Government funded Christian-only restaurants. (Note I said government run. Private groups - that means no gov't funding- are indeed free to do these things if they wish.)
What happens? Well, whoops – it’s not that Christians get to hang together and everyone else goes about their business happily… no. What happens is that now, these Christians are placed in a position of ENFORCING compliance. They need to make sure that NO non-christians use their government funded toilets, or eat with their silverware. They need to find better ways to police those non-christians – maybe making lists of them, or giving Christians marked ID pass cards. But ID cards can be forged, so … hmmm. Perhaps those non-Christians need to be confined to certain areas, so the Christians can more easily keep them away. And on and on the ugliness grows.
I am sure you can easily see how absurd this is when placed in such a context. Can you see, however, that it IS what’s going on, except in different circumstances? When any religion runs a state, rules must be made which give preference to the followers. ANY TIME preference is given, prejudice is an inherent aspect of it. It’s impossible to be otherwise.
Some Christians, on the other hand, have come to believe that removing references to their faith, tests of their faith, is somehow promoting bias against them. That those who wish to keep any church and government separate are somehow advocating non-belief, or trying to supress the free practice of their Christianity. I hope, from the examples given here, and some additional reading, that it becomes clear that is simply not the case. Some believe Jefferson never wrote anything about keeping religion and government separate. See this document - from http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/danburys.jpg
The ONLY honest and truly fair solution is that the government give no preference to any faith, but welcome all types of belief, including non-belief, as a part of the wonderful ‘melting pot’ of this country.
Comments
Anyone can believe anything they want, but no one can force it upon another. Government remains neutral towards all religions, favoring none and providing no special privelege based on religion. And every citizen enjoys equal rights regardless of religious opinion. What could be fairer than that?
Good explanation, Carol. What many of the people who want government-promoted national days of prayer, etc., don't seem to realize is that what they're asking for isn't freedom of religion, but special privilege for it.
The best guarantee of freedom of religion for them as well as everyone else is complete government neutrality on it; ie: separation of church and state.
I agree, Rick and Hugh.
A friend emailed me with some truly provocative questions about separation of church and state. Difficult areas. I asked him to consider posting them here. If he doesn't, I'll go ahead and post some for discussion.
Here's what James Madison said on a similar topic: (sorry but Examiner let me include links)
"
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
"
Anyone can believe anything they want, but no one can force it upon another. Government remains neutral towards all religions, favoring none and providing no special privelege based on religion. And every citizen enjoys equal rights regardless of religious opinion. What could be fairer than that?
Great article, Carol!
Some questions that came to my mind about where the "rubber meets the road" in practical application, balancing the state's interest in protecting the population, vs. individuals' interest in free exercise of their religion. Might be good to start a discussion: (condensed version, due to character limitations)
1) Can/should the gov't. interfere if part of a religious ceremony includes giving a small amount of wine to a minor?
2) Can/should the gov't. forbid the use of illegal psychoactive drugs in religious ceremonies?
3) Can/should the gov't. forbid suicide, if sanctioned (or required) by a religion?
4) Can/should the gov't. force someone to provide medical treatment to a minor, if that treatment goes against the family's religious beliefs? (Where is the appropriate line for gov't to interfere in protecting minors... circumcision of babies is OK? ear piercing? religious tatoos on a child? who decides what is "mental abuse," etc.)
Hi folks... great Madison quote, Javier!
And, great questions, Glen. I've thought about them, and have come up with some -- not 'answers' so much as 'thoughts' about them.
Q1. I'm not sure that's actually the case in the RC church; but it's still a good ethics question. I'd add offering alcohol to an on-the-wagon alcoholic, as well. I think that one can refuse the wine, and some churches use grape juice, not alcohol. I think the legality of offering a child, or an alcoholic or someone who simply doesn't wish to drink, a sip of wine is an issue best left to the individual church and its members. In other words, I don't think it's something for the law to get into.
Q2. Again, so long as the drugs are being used by ADULTS within the confines of the ceremony and do not cause external harm, I think it's the business of the church, not the government.
continued in next box.
Q3. Lee and I discussed this last evening... and came to the realization that the proscription against suicide is a religious- based law to begin with, and one with which I disagree.
Q4. This is the toughest question for me. I think that the welfare of a child (no matter what s/he's written) as determined by the state overrules the separation of c/s in cases like this. ANY practice which could potentially seriously/fatally harm a participant should be prohibited while that person remains under the legal age of adulthood, and the parents should be required to provide medical attention. Once adult, however, each person has the right to be stupid. That goes for branding (tattoos). Circumcision isn't necessarily a religious act, and is medically controversial, so I wouldn't rule against it. Mental abuse, well that's a whole column or book in itself, isn't it!!
My husband disagrees,
My husband disagrees with the requirement for legal age - which is either 18 or 21. He thinks that a 17 yr old, for example, who has professed his faith should be able to refuse medical treatment... my problem is that we have to come up with a 'line in the sand' and age seems to be the most rational.
I'd love to hear other opinions on these questions. They are excellent... provocative and need to be asked... and answered.
Great article. People don't seem to understand what a slippery slope it is from saying "under god" to "under my God." We need to keep religion out of government, and government out of religious organizations of any kind.
I have been writing only six weeks and am still learning this exciting topic. It is the most controversial thing I ever read about. Forgive me if I show my ignorance, but I am challenged about how much the children don't know. -- I'm 70 and still learning. Please let me link your article to my submittal today. 9-17-10 Thanks
I have been writing only six weeks and am still learning this exciting topic. It is the most controversial thing I ever read about. Forgive me if I show my ignorance, but I am challenged about how much the children don't know. -- I'm 70 and still learning. Please let me link your article to my submittal today. 9-17-10 Thanks
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!