Separation of Church and State

[sferrari17]

Here's the beginning of a paper I am writing on the Separation of Church and State.  Let me know what you think!

                                  The Role of the Church in American Society
   "Religion has always been a major issue in every civilization.  Religious beliefs and their relation to the government of the United States has been a subject of controversy since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock.  In today’s world, battle lines have been drawn around the separation of church and state.   Each side has become firmly entrenched along pro-religious or anti-religious lines.  However, both parties have a tendency to hold on to their principles with the tenacity of a bulldog, refusing any compromise point blank.  Ignorance and obstinacy have compounded the problem, resulting in two groups of people with extreme ideals.  Both parties have good points and bad points; here I will attempt to clear up some of the confusion.
   First, here are some of the facts about origins of the concept of the separation of church and state.  Contrary to popular belief, the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is not contained in the Constitution.  The phrase was first used by the founder of the Rhode Island colony, Roger Williams.  Unlike the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Plymouth Colony, the Rhode Island colony did not have an established religion, but instead supported religious tolerance.  Thomas Jefferson borrowed some of his ideals from Williams, including the idea of a wall between the church and the government.  In 1802, Jefferson, acting as President, sent a letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority) to reassure them that their rights would not be infringed upon by larger denominations.  In the 1878 Supreme Court case Reynolds vs. U.S., which involved a ruling on polygamy, the court cited Jefferson’s letter.  They ruled against polygamy, stating that the practice was in violation of social duties and subversive of good order.  This landmark case made the separation of church and state an official part of U.S. policy.
    Most everyone agrees that the government should be independent of the church.  What makes decisions difficult is that there is a large amount of grey area, which allows for very subjective rulings.  There is room for error both ways, and mistakes are often made.  However, I have noticed that in recent years, people have tended to restrict the church far more than necessary.  The trials of the church in the last quarter century greatly resemble the social changes in racial dynamics over the same time period.  During most of America’s history white males have dominated our country politically and socially.  However, in today’s world, the white man has fewer privileges than anyone else.  Although I am sure African American and women’s rights groups would be up in arms about that comment, it’s true.  For example, if a black man made a negative comment about a white man, it is merely an insult to that one man.  On the contrary, if a white man makes a similar comment about a black man, it’s an assault on his race.  I have personal experience with this problem; statistically, a white, middle class male has the least chance of getting scholarships.  If I am applying for a job or for college and an equally qualified person of a different race or gender wants the same position, I will lose out every time.  American culture has overcompensated in regards to race.
   In the same way, a backlash has arisen against the Christian faith in America.  For centuries, Christianity has been the predominant religion in America and in Europe.  However, the founders of our country recognized the flaws inherent in England’s system of government.  Depending on the monarch, England either supported Catholicism or Protestantism.  Consequently, the religion that was currently out of favor was viciously persecuted.  Moreover, the church had an unhealthy amount of influence in the government of many countries in Europe.  The church’s control made the government ineffective, while at the same time subjecting the church to political maneuvering and corruption.  The U.S. Constitution took a major step in the right direction by solving those problems and guaranteeing religious freedom to all U.S. citizens.  However, the members of the Constitutional Convention didn’t intend to remove religion all together; they merely wanted to limit its influence on the political process. 
   Part of the confusion about what the Founding Father’s intended results from a lack of knowledge about their religious beliefs.  Christians tout the fact that our nation was founded on Christian principles, while atheists maintain that the first American patriots were far from Christian.  In a way, both parties are correct.  Strictly speaking, a significant amount of our most beloved national heroes were not Christians.  In fact they were Deists; meaning, they believed in a god, but not necessarily the God of Christianity.  On the other hand, these men lived by what could be considered the Christian moral code.  Your interpretation depends on your personal beliefs.  If there is no God, then the Founding Fathers merely believed in the basic guiding morality common to nearly every civilization in history.  But if the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is real, then America’s most sacred tenets are based on the laws laid down in the Bible.  As is the case with many hard to solve issues, it all comes down to your personal beliefs.
   All of these things lead to the problems we are working to solve in our nation now. I believe that the Christian church is subject to the same treatment that white men across America are being subjected to.  Other religions (and non-religions) are given special treatment, and Christianity is left hanging out to dry.  Of course, this in only my opinion, and like all people, my opinions are biased.  However, I believe there is legitimate concern about the persecution of the Christian Church.  Allow me to give you an example from my own life.  My church carries out a program every December called Laces4Love.  We raise money to buy shoes, socks, and other goodies for poor elementary school kids in our area and then distribute the items at their schools.  Americans United for the Separation of Church and State demanded that our school district block us from access to the schools because of ‘ritual foot washing.’  As a volunteer in the program, I can assure you that no religious rituals were carried out.  We washed the children’s feet with warm wipes before we put socks and shoes on them.  We did this for two reasons; one, because we were trying to be sanitary, and two, because warm wipes feel really good in December.  (If you haven’t had your feet wiped down with warm wipes in cold weather, you’ve missed out.)  Americans United was trying to deprive poor children shoes and socks for political reasons.  I don’t know about you, but to me, that seems slightly out of line.  This is just one example.  Another recent issue involved the production of Christian themed specialty license plates.  Americans United was up in arms again, saying that it qualified as sponsorship by the state.  They chose to ignore the fact that Christians paid the specialty fee, same as everyone else who buys a specialty plate.  As long they are paying the same price, I don’t see how Christian license plates have any different effect than bumper stickers.
   A phrase you may have heard before is that the Constitution advocates ‘freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.’  I believe this saying is very appropriate.  When lawsuits are filed over trivial issues, and people get all riled up about things like a copy of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, it’s time that we reprioritize.  Some things just aren’t that big of a deal." 

I am still working on revising the paper, and I am currently writing an additional section that deals with some of the ways the Church is violating the rule of separation of church in state.  I look forward to your responses!

[jacknky]

I didn't read your whole post but think I got the gist from your statement "However, the members of the Constitutional Convention didn’t intend to remove religion all together.".

I don't think anyone is trying to remove religion "altogether" but merely the endorsement of any religion through the government. I think the radical aspect to our Constitution is not that it allows "freedom of religion", as important as that is, but rather that the authority of our government rests with the people, not with God. That was unheard of then as every government stated that God set up their monarchy or other form of government. Instead our Constitution said "We, the people". There was a reason why our Constitution made no reference anywhere to a diety.

You are correct that our Founding fathers were not all Christians. In addition to Deists and Christians there were freethinkers, agnostics, atheists and freemasons. They fought for a secular government not one that promoted any religion in any way.

"A defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America"-- John Adams:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy and superstition, theywill consider this event as an era in their history...it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. Thirteen governments thisfounded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery... are a great point gained in the favor of the rights of mankind."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Letter by Thomas Jefferson, 1814.

[jacknky]

"As a volunteer in the program, I can assure you that no religious rituals were carried out.  We washed the children’s feet with warm wipes before we put socks and shoes on them.  We did this for two reasons; one, because we were trying to be sanitary, and two, because warm wipes feel really good in December. (If you haven’t had your feet wiped down with warm wipes in cold weather, you’ve missed out.)  Americans United was trying to deprive poor children shoes and socks for political reasons.  I don’t know about you, but to me, that seems slightly out of line."

It sounds like you're being a little disingenious here. If the washing of the feet were not a religious ritual then why press the issue so far as to not provide the items to the poor children?

"This is just one example.  Another recent issue involved the production of Christian themed specialty license plates.  Americans United was up in arms again, saying that it qualified as sponsorship by the state.  They chose to ignore the fact that Christians paid the specialty fee, same as everyone else who buys a specialty plate.  As long they are paying the same price, I don’t see how Christian license plates have any different effect than bumper stickers."

It's because our country hs a tradition of separation of church and state, not a separation of state and Vietnam vets or Breast Cancer symbols. Sticking a cross on state license plates could be construed as an endorsement. Personally, I'm not that concerned but that's the rational.

I think many Christians have a bit of a martyr complex. If our government is neutral toward religion then it is oppressing them. not so. You are free to slap the Ten Commandments on your house, your lawn, your business, your church or synagogue. You are not free to use tax dollars from all of us to promote your religion.

[sferrari17]

Well, to your assertion that Christians have a bit of a martyr complex, I would somewhat agree.  Like I said, I haven't yet written the section of the paper about what the Church is doing wrong in regards to separation of Church and State. 

I'm not sure I understand you reference to my church's shoe program.  I don't know what you mean by pressing the issue or anything else.  Our pastor deliberately avoided making an controversial statements or any contentions against the ACLU so as not to interfere with the ministry.  He actually spent part of a sermon a couple of weeks after the affair to explain his actions because some people criticized him for not standing up against the ACLU. His rational was that it was more important to get the items to the children than it was to prove ourselves right.  In the end, the ACLU got a lot of bad press from the event anyways, so it doesn't matter. To sum up, no child was denied anything because of the affair.

As to the bumper stickers, my point is that it is not a governmental endorsement.  The people who buy the plates pay the full price, and as long as they are willing to pay, they should be able to put whatever they want on their license plate. 

I said above that I somewhat agree with your assessment that the Christian community has a martyr complex.  Just look back a couple weeks to when James Dobson jumped all over Obama for a statement made years before that wasn't even offensive.  However, I want you to consider this: if those license plates were for Muslims, Jews, or another religion, there would not have been nearly as much of a fuss.  There is a group of people, led by prominent atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who profess their hatred for Christianity and their desire to completely eradicate religion, and Christianity in particular, from the face of the earth.  Their numbers are growing as more and more of the intellectual community identifies atheism with sophistication and intelligence. Any book that spouts such hateful language and unfounded assertions becomes an instant bestseller; that ought to give you some indication of the current mood of American society.  I am not saying that Christians can't be touchy or overreact, because it happens everyday.  However, I think that we have a legitimate concern.

[jacknky]

"There is a group of people, led by prominent atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who profess their hatred for Christianity and their desire to completely eradicate religion, and Christianity in particular, from the face of the earth.  Their numbers are growing as more and more of the intellectual community identifies atheism with sophistication and intelligence. Any book that spouts such hateful language and unfounded assertions becomes an instant bestseller;"

Well, atheists, the most reviled group in America, are indeed coming out of the closet and expressing their concerns. It should be noted that none of the prominent atheists you mentioned are trying to force anyone to not be a Christians or other religious believer. Rather they are expressing their own concerns about the challenges that religion brings and are using education and persuasion as their tool, not laws or guns.

One of the primary changes they want to bring about is that we as a society should value reason as much as we value belief. We choose our leaders and make societal decisions based too much on values of belief and not enough on values of reason. I don't expect you to agree with this but they are opening up avenues of debate and re-evaluation. i think that's a good thing.

[sferrari17]

You are right that atheists have been persecuted in the past, and that is wrong.  I think you are also right in that our politicians should not be chosen based on their religious beliefs.  However, it IS important that our politicians are morally sound, and Christians tend to think that other Christians are more morally sound than others, even when that is not necessarily the case.

However, you are very wrong about your perception of the new atheism.  Do you honestly think that if atheists like Harris and Dawkins were the majority in America that they would practice tolerance and moderation?  Absolutely not.  Sam Harris once said on during an interview that if he had a magic wand and could abolish either religion or rape, he would choose religion. (I did a quick Google and I didn't find a reference for the quote, but I distinctly remember it from Ravi Zachariah's The End of Reason.  Zachariah referenced all of his quotes in the book, so I'll try to find it and give you the source for the quote.  Incidentally, The End of Reason systematically tears apart Harris' arguments and reveals him as a hateful demagogue.  However, Zachariah is not being asked for interviews and his book is not displayed in the front of every bookstore, is it?)  The man is an anti-religious zealot.

It's not that the prominent atheists are physically forcing anyone to give up religion.  Instead, they use provocative language instead of sound arguments.  I guarantee you that if Harris had just published his books with the arguments listed in fact form, without all of his embellishment and ridicule, that it would not have been a bestseller.  His arguments don't stand up by themselves; they take widespread attacks and blatant sensationalism to cover up the flaws.  Honestly, read The End of Reason.  I've read Letter to A Christian Nation as well, and Zachariah's approach is much more tolerant than Harris', even though Harris claims that religious intolerance is stifling America.

[jacknky]

17,
I've read Dawkins and Sam Harris and, you might not be surprised to hear, I don't find them hateful. As a non-theist I find them expressing viewpoints that I share to a lesser or greater extent. I've read two Sam Harris books and can't imagine that he would be stupid enough to even respond to that question about rape or religion. Talk about a lose-lose question.

One distinction I think needs to be made is that these guys are mostly talking about fundementalist religions. "Letter to a Christian Nation" is written directly to fundementalists. I believe the worst indictment they have about liberal theists is that they tend to "enable" the non-reasoning aspect of religion that allows extremism and fundementalism to thrive.

I haven't read Zacariah. Maybe I should. I'll tell you who I don't like- Christopher Hitchens. I indeed do find him too mean spirited.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Howdy, I actually have some time today!

I haven't read everything yet, so I will apologize if this part has already been covered.

You mention that the constitution does not contain the words "wall of separation between church and state".  You are correct, it does not contain those words.  Often when I hear that statement being made it is in the context of trying to show that there is no wall of separation, that would be wrong.  While the constitution does not contain the exact phrase referred to above, it does contain the wall of separation in the first amendment.  Saying that it does not exist because it is not labeled as a wall is like saying that your house has no walls because they are not clearly labeled as walls. 

all

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

sferrari17,

I agree with what you are saying about the Dawkins and Hitchens style atheists.  From the outside, I see them as the other side of the coin, sharing the same basic metal as many Christians. Certain Christian groups wish to spread their ideology to everyone as well.  You can point out that Dawkins and Hitchens wish to eradicate all religion, well, many wish to eradicate all religion except for Christianity. 

As far as persecution goes, I have never been attacked by atheists for not being atheist.  Atheists do not blame me for all the ills of our country, or natural disasters.  I have never been excluded from friends or family for not being an atheist.  I do not have to keep quite about my theological leanings because I am surrounded by a majority of atheists, and have to keep public opinion in mind  for my safety and livelihood. 

These are all things that have been done to me by Christians, either as an atheist, or as a pagan.

all

[jacknky]

I think in a real sense the real "enemy" is neither theism or non-theism but rather dogmatism, the thinking that we have the only true path and everyone else is wrong and therefore less than us. I also think dogmatism is a very real problem for monotheistic religions which specifically teach that their way is the one true way. Monotheism is very susceptible to this very narrow way of thinking.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

I think in a real sense the real "enemy" is neither theism or non-theism but rather dogmatism, the thinking that we have the only true path and everyone else is wrong and therefore less than us. I also think dogmatism is a very real problem for monotheistic religions which specifically teach that their way is the one true way. Monotheism is very susceptible to this very narrow way of thinking.

I agree, but I think atheism is just as susceptible. 

all

[jacknky]

"I agree, but I think atheism is just as susceptible."

perhaps. On the other hand atheists don't claim to have God on their side or to speak for God so perhaps we're not as persuasive. But I agree with you in general. Dogmatic thinking just seems to be a part of the human condition.

I do think non-theists can be every bit as obnoxious as any fundementalist.

[sferrari17]

There's no doubt that there are obnoxious, ignorant, and hateful people on both sides.  However, most religious fundamentalists who fall into that category are acknowledged as such by the media and others.  Only their small group of followers treats them seriously.  However, I don't think that is the case with Harris and others.  They have best selling books, are invited to interview on tv shows, etc...  I just don't think that these guys are treated the same as religious fundamentals that are out of their minds.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

There's no doubt that there are obnoxious, ignorant, and hateful people on both sides.  However, most religious fundamentalists who fall into that category are acknowledged as such by the media and others.  Only their small group of followers treats them seriously.  However, I don't think that is the case with Harris and others.  They have best selling books, are invited to interview on tv shows, etc...  I just don't think that these guys are treated the same as religious fundamentals that are out of their minds.

Well, I don't really want to get in a who is meaner argument, but many of the fundamentalists also have very popular books.  I haven't seen many atheist bookstores in my time. 

In any case, the problem I have with many of the fundamentalists, is they are not denounced by moderates.  You can say that about atheists too.  The only way any of it's going to change is if the moderates who respect each other will be willing to stand up and show that they respect each other.  Otherwise, you get all non-Christians thinking that all Christians are like the loudest, and the favor gets returned.

all

[sferrari17]

True enough. It's time the radicals were exposed for what they are.

[Acumen]

I'm sort of radical also.   

[sferrari17]

Lol.  There is a difference between being radically hateful and radically loving.  Hopefully, all Christians are radical in that aspect- Jesus was.

[jacknky]

17,
"However, most religious fundamentalists who fall into that category are acknowledged as such by the media and others.  Only their small group of followers treats them seriously."

Not where I live. There are many fundementalists writing books, producing TV and radio shows who have made themselves quite wealthy.

[jacknky]

"Hopefully, all Christians are radical in that aspect- Jesus was."

Hopefully more of us, Christian and non-Christian, can love radically. Why should Christians have all the fun?

[sferrari17]

"Hopefully more of us, Christian and non-Christian, can love radically. Why should Christians have all the fun?"

lol...