Non-constitutional arguments for separation of church and state

Furthermore, a Google search on the separation of state and church, our Founding Fathers, and the U.S. Constitution yields thousands of results, which lead to a quagmire of online articles, publications, blogs, and discussion forums that belabor and propagate seemingly endless debates over whether the First Amendment, our Founding Fathers and their writings truly support separation of state and church; if so, what that means; whether our Founding Fathers intended to create a nation based on Christian principles; if so, what that implies; and so on with countless other tangential discussions and disputes.

However, one might ask whether it is even necessary to debate the First Amendment or the writings of our Founding Fathers to resolve the issue of separation of state and church. Can we not work through this issue with our own modern and independent thoughts and reasoning? Aren't there a set of more fundamental reasons to establish the separation of state and church? This isn’t to imply that our Constitution or what our Founding Fathers wrote to establish our country is not important, or that studying these works is not critical to solving many constitutional related issues and maintaining our constitutional rights. Part of the issue is that our Founding Fathers did not spoon-feed and spell out for us in plain, modern language their precise views on state and religion with clear-cut examples. Another part of the issue is that despite the fact that historians have done their detective work, based on the writings of some of our Founding Fathers and their not-so-Christian sentiments, and have built a case for why government should not meddle in religious affairs whatsoever except to protect freedom of religious (or lack thereof) expression outside of government, these reasons have done little to dissuade the dogmatic positions of those who are against separation of state and church. Moreover, perhaps it is at this point of disagreement that we should consider removing ourselves from the constitutional context of the debate, and viewing the issue from a new perspective.

Let’s assume that we do not have to study our country’s founding documents to settle the issue of the separation of state and church. Let’s also assume that we can indeed solve this problem with our own independent thoughts and reasoning, and that we can provide good reasons for why we should endorse some sort of separation of church and state in our country. Let’s set aside the old texts and view the issue with a fresh and modern lens, using our practical reasoning and intuitions, while at the same time agreeing that mutual respect for human beings and the Golden Rule are axiomatic to the debate. What could we conclude from this vantage point?

Consider the following scenarios:

1) Prayer, or any verbal appeal, supplication, or worship of any deity is made a requirement by a public school, to be recited by all students.

2) The Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Vedas, or any other religious text is taught as a separate required or elective course in a public school from a religious perspective.

3) Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or any politically orientated text that refers to a deity of any religion, is made a requirement by a public school, to be recited by all student before classes commence.

4) A monument of the 10 Commandments or any other list of religiously oriented moral prescriptions is placed in the forum of a government building or on government property property.

The following is a very simple argument for why we should thwart all similar instances of the above scenarios, based on the assumption that mutual respect for human beings and the Golden Rule are of prime importance in how we should deal with one another.

The first point is that all of the above scenarios have one thing in common, which is that they require tax payers in our country to fund their introduction and maintenance. The second point is that not all tax payers are of one particular faith of religiously oriented worldview. In fact, according to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, 76% of the U.S. is Christian, 1.2% Jewish, .6% Muslim, .5% Buddhism, and 15% with No Religion (including agnostics and atheists). Other surveys also show that a subset of those of various religious faiths support separation of state and church, and would object to any of the above scenarios. What this implies is that given any of the above scenarios, approximately 15% of us will be required to fund the presentation of religious content in our schools or on government properties that directly violates our world views, and in the case of public schools, directly contradicts the values and world views that we hold so dearly and teach our children. In addition to this 15% will be a subset of those from religious faiths who will be required to fund the presentation of content in our schools or on government properties that may not contradict their world views or unique religious values, but nonetheless contradicts their views of the appropriate times and places for the presentation of religiously oriented content. What is wrong with this?

Let's just focus on scenario 1) and suppose that the prayer is recited from the Koran and is in dedication to Allah. What Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist would not object to their children being required to do this? Why would they object? Because they take issues with disrespecting the values and world views that they teach their children and others attempting use our tax dollars to over-ride and disrespecting those world views. Such an action is plain and simply a blatant act of disrespect for all opposing worldviews and the right of families to be able to instill any religious values they choose in their children without having the government nullify them. And the Golden Rule supports the same conclusion. For those who would hypothetically promote an Islamic prayer in a U.S. public school (mostly likely those of the Islamic faith), would they desire a similar action imposed upon them? Of course not. It makes no difference if we replace the Koran with the Bible, Vedas, or any other religious or irreligious text. All cases require disrespect for other human beings and a violation of the Golden Rule.

So we are compelled to ask the question, why would anyone who respects their fellow human beings and subscribes to the Golden Rule want to force all U.S. tax payers, a country of diverse world views and values, to fund the introduction of any of the above scenarios, when such actions clearly do not reflect these two basic and cross-cultural values? Doesn't this suggest that those who do not agree with separation of state do not truly and sincerely respect all human beings and subscribe to the Golden Rule? And the last rhetorical question is what does all this say of their worldviews, which would require them to violate basic human values as a means to promoting their own ethnocentric values? Some opponents will argue that not allowing people to introduce their religious world views in cases similar to the above scenarios is a violation of their right to freedom of expression. However, this is a flawed and twisted logic, because no right is a legitimate right if it negates a more fundamental set of human rights. For example, a person may have the right to pursuit of happiness, but not at the cost of the lives of others. Analogically, this is no different in principle than people wanting to have tax payers fund the expression of their religious views, at the cost of disrespecting the world views of others. Rights come with responsibility and boundaries.

Consequently, we can provide an argument for separation of state and church without resorting to interpreting the First Amendment. It does not have to be a convoluted argument restricted to a single world view. And clearly there are many other such arguments, as evident by some of Boise's humanists, who have also expressed their views on the separation of state and church: