Why a more secular government BENEFITS religion and religous freedom.

In another thread, a fellow poster suggested that the Supreme Court's incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th amendment was in error, and that there was nothing wrong with an official state religion.

First of all, this was an issue at the beginning of our country. Look up the fight over the Virginia Assessment controversies, where Jefferson and Madison heroically stopped Virginia from taxing the people to support a specific religion. Jefferson and Madison fiercely believed in religous freedoms, and that a state religion was a violation of such freedoms.

Is it any wonder that the western nations with state sponsored religions have a less religous populous, whereas America, which values religous liberty to such a high extreme, forbids state religions, and yet has perhaps the highest percentage of religous people within it's borders?

(On an somewhat related note, look at Christmas and Easter, how they have been pretty much hijacked by Santa and the Easer bunny.)

The fact is, a state sponsored religion would be unconstitutional today. To allow Utah to be the Mormon state and to allow Massachusettes to become the Catholic State would violate the Constitution, and would INHIBIT religous freedoms. Thankfully, we don't even need the constitution to safegaurd us from such religous oppression, most states have adopted 'mini Blaine amendments,' to their constitutions (the newer states were required to have such language before they were admitted to the union) which is essentially the same as the 1st amendment, garunteeing the right of free excercise and the anti-establishment clause. So you don't even need to have an incorporation argument, the states were smart enough to do it for themselves.

Although the Establishment Clause and the Free Excercise clause are often seen in conflict in our federal and state constitutional arguments, in this regard, both clauses are working together.

People have to support a lot of things with their tax dollars that they disagree with, but the government is smart in recognizing that they should not have to support other people's religions. Having a state religion necessarily leads to a host of other problems. Schools inculcating their children with the state religion, significant prejudicial issues within the state governments, and of course, religous leaders of a particular faith having an undue influence.

Furthermore, if states had a sanctioned religion, it would increase divisiveness between states. And laws would favor the state religion, to the disadvantage of other religions. Look at all the problems and discrimination Catholics and Jews faced in the early era of America when the government and the laws were inevitably dominated by a pro-Protestant only sentiment.

Furhtermore, going back to Europe, if you ask me, a state using and promoting a religion invites the state to use the religion for it's own purposes, dilluting the importance and the spiritual significance of that religion.

Thus, a more secular government that stays clear of promoting one religion over another is beneficial both to the religion that would be promoted and to the other religions.

The state and Federal government(s) remaining religously NEUTRAL, as in not ANTI nor PRO religion is the best course of action. I was surprised that people in today's day and age actually believed otherwise.

 

I agree that a secular state, one that is genuinely neutral, benefits religion.

That doesn't mean the 14th Amendment actually extends the Establishment Clause to the states.

Nor does that mean that the current courts are ruling in a genuinely neutral fashion.

 

Like I said, many states have provisions in their constitutions that effectively say the same thing as the 1st Amendment.

But I don't see how the current rulings are not neutral. If the law is for a compelling secular interest, if it happens to help or hurt religion, it's ok. And this is coming from Rehnquist.

 

Read John Courtney Murray's We Hold These Truths


That pretty much sums up how a secular government nourishes religious freedom. Plus it also tells why a Catholic is best suited to be President, but that's besides the fact.

Also look at JFK's Houston Speech given on September 12, 1960 to understand the issue even better.

 

I think its sad people's religious beliefs are so weak they feel the need to have the government endorse them or back them up.

Fundies love to say the phrase "sep. of church and state" is not in the Constitution."

Fine, I will concede that. But if you want to get really technical, the Constitution does not mention god(s). And according to our Constitution, the United States WAS NOT FOUNDED UPON CHRISTIANITY. That's right. The Constitution says so. "Where?", you might ask.

From the Constitution...

"Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "

This was ratified by all states by 1788

Now, let's take a look at a Treaty signed by our Founding Fathers about 8 years later.

From the Treaty of Tripoli...

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


So, according to the U.S. Constitution, it and the treaties this country enters into are the Supreme Law of the land. It doesn't say one is more binding than the other. It says they are both SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Enter the Treaty of Tripoli 8 years later which clearly spells out that this country was not founded upon Christianity.

Check and mate...

 

To play devil's advocate:

The founding fathers also supervised the building of many government buildings in D.C. whose architecture makes reference to the Old Testament.

The Congress has a designated chaplain to open its sessions with prayer.

Many presidents, including George Washington, mention God in official speeches.

 

Mentioning god in speeches and using Christian influences in buildings is different from a country being founded up Christianity. Reread the quote from Treaty of Tripoli. If our Founding Fathers believed in the slightest that our country was founded up Christianity, why on earth would they have signed their name to that treaty??

 

Right. No one says Christianity can't have an influence, but the founders wanted to make sure that it didn't have a dominant influence, in terms of church law dictating civil law.

 

Yet our country was undeniably founded upon Christian/Protestant ethics. The "City upon a Hill" speech by John Winthrop is the earliest evidence. Why do you think the Puritan pilgrims came to Mass. in the 1620's? Religious freedom, for them. Their ideas founded the country, but they did not expressly want any religion to dominate America, especially Catholicism.

Thinking that our country was not founded upon ideas of religious freedom is ludicrous. And many U.S. leaders have invoked God in their speeches. To say that the U.S. is not a Christian country now is ignorance. We are the most religious country in the developed world.

 

Granted.

However, my examples will be the ones used by the Christians saying we should not have a more secular government than we already have.

They would use this reasoning to say their is nothing wrong with the POA the way it is and that we should keep In God We Trust on our money, so on and so forth.

 

Thinking that our country was not founded upon ideas of religious freedom is ludicrous.

But doesn't "religious freedom" require an environment that doesn't endorse one religion over another?

It's strange to hear someone invoke the principle of "religious freedom" to mean they have a right to practice their religion through the government, and limit the religious freedoms of others.

"Religious freedom" means you, as an individual, can practice the religion of your choice in whatever way you choose as long as you do not infringe upon anyone else's rights. It does not mean you have the "freedom" to ask the government to practice your religion on your behalf. With the freedom to worship comes the responsibility for worship - you don't get to blame the government for not issuing your prayers to God.

 

Religous Freedom is precisely the reason why we need a more secular government.

 

I'd comment, except this is a fairly basic and obvious issue, and OWM's position is extremely similar to mine.


Teh spooky!!11!1!

 

The founders didn't share in certain modern people's beliefs concerning secularism and what it is today.

The founders never intended that spirituality not be a part of public discourse, only that there would be no official state-run religion which could oppress the people.

 

There is no proof that spirituality as a major or official component of public discourse positively affects religion, though, DM. In fact, along the lines of the EU-US data that OWM posts, I think that it stifles and constrains religion. Christians and Muslims and other religions are all better off with broadly secular government.*






* I say broadly for a reason, because common sense needs to pervade this whole issue, and it often is in short supplies on both sides of the issue.

 

Untrue.

When secularism is legislated into it's own brand of 'morality' then we are all affected. The founders surely did not intend for such a scenario as it stands today to happen where kids can't pray at sporting events, and so on.

 

The founders surely did not intend for such a scenario as it stands today to happen where kids can't pray at sporting events

A kid can pray at a sporting event. The problem comes when the school begins to organize the prayer sessions and decide who will lead the prayer, thereby endorsing at least one religion and possibly denying the same privilege to others.

The founders probably didn't intend for the federal government to be involved in running public schools, which is probably why this becomes such a difficult issue to debate based on the founder's original intentions for the relationship of church and state.

 

I agree on principle. Neither state nor federal governments have any business endorsing or promoting a particular religion. Citizens of different (or no) faiths should not be forced to subsidise Christianity (or any other religion) through the tax system.

And while I was the poster who suggested that the Establishment Clause should not be applied to the states (because it is neither a privilege or immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment), it should be recognised that the constitution only sets minimums. Just because something is constitutionally permissible does not mean that it's acceptable.

 

The First Amendment states that Congress (that is, the U.S. federal legislature) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The correct interpretation of that Amendment is that it dictates neutrality on the part of the Congress with regard to religion. It cannot establish one, nor can it prohibit free exercise.

The secularist "movement" in America has violated this intent, largely through the courts, by increasingly banning religious expression in any and all areas where the federal government has even a tangential interest. The meaning of the term "establishment" has been stretched so thin that the religious expression of one person, in a public place that recieves a single penny from the federal government, can now be branded as a federal "establishment of religion". In reality, this has now reached the point of outright persecution of religion in general, and Christianity specifically, on the part of a tiny handful of militant atheists and their allies in the legal profession.

While you have a point, in the sense that persecution often strengthens belief, it can hardly be said that this was the intent of the founders of the U.S.

 

The meaning of the term "establishment" has been stretched so thin that the religious expression of one person, in a public place that recieves a single penny from the federal government

I think it has more to do with the public money being spent to promote a religious interest.

That does not prevent individuals from expressing their religion themselves, or from using their own money in their pursuit of religious expression.

 

You made a very important point here:

The founders probably didn't intend for the federal government to be involved in running public schools, which is probably why this becomes such a difficult issue to debate based on the founder's original intentions for the relationship of church and state.

 

Which makes a great argument against strict construction, the country and the government has changed since the founders time.

Furthermore, it's not just the 1st amendment of the Federal government, most state constitutions have language indicating the same thing, so really, this myth that it's all about decades of improper Supreme Court rulings is exactly that.

 

Which makes a great argument against strict construction, the country and the government has changed since the founders time.

On the contrary, it makes a great argument for school choice.

This is how the whole thing has worked-- you have people who advocate an ever-growing influence of the federal government, and demand an absolute prohibition on religious expression anywhere the federal government has influence. The result is a de facto obliteration of religious freedom through violation of the spirit of the free exercise clause.

 

Um, that's not contrary, see, school choice would be out on a strict constructionist theory.

 

Please explain how.