The Annual FSP Religion Summit

[scott]

Smeagol asked me to start another God thread, and I started thinking that it might not be such a bad idea.

However, unlike in the past, I won't start this thread in terms of a debate of Gods existence. Rather, I'd like to start this go around of "The God Thread" with a direction and a focal point and let things go where ever they please from there.

So, I pose the following question to the bright minds of the FSP Politics forum (and anyone else who happens to wander in):

What role should religion play in general public culture, education, and government? This isn't to debate the cons utionality of displaying the 10 Commandments in a public place, but rather to get your thoughts of what YOU consider to be ideal, whether it is state sponsered religion, or having things the way they are now.

I'm hoping this can be a starting point for a good debate. For the most part, these threads haven't caused much trouble in the past when people have chosen to remain cool headed. Most notably I look kindly upon my disagreements with Travis, who remains one of my favorite posters. Don't feel confined to the boundries of the suggested topic, I'm just hoping for a starting point.

[Guru of Nothing]

All I will ask is that replies to this thread have an aim of some sort; and not the usual secularists are out to get me, ACLU, blah, blah, blah. I say this because I really don't know where the Christians stand on many issues. If they want nativity scenes in every office, that is fine with me. I really don't mind the ten commandments, but many of them have nothing to do with the laws of this land; in fact, they run counter to the laws. Oh wait, you said this is not about the public display of the ten commandments.

I'll stand by and wait for someone to add something interesting.

[smeagol]

You have chosen a very interesting angle to start this debate. I will leave it to the intelligent FSP posters to address the point (I'm not one of the when it come to this topic).

MFD, are you there . . .?

[Spurminator]

I feel that mixing Religion and Law is bad for both. While the United States is in no immediate danger of becoming a Puritan society or anything similar to the Islamic Theocracies in the Middle East, any steps in that direction can be dangerous. Rather than a faith being accepted and tolerated by secular society, that faith can become the "enemy" if it inhibits those who do not share it.

On the other hand, large-scale reactions to expressions of faith can create a similar response to secularism. Without discussing the Ten Commandments and Pledge issues specifically, I will say that issues like these do create defensive reactions from many in the religious community, spurred on by incidious dogmatists like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson with their own agendas beyond personal relationships with God. These reactions may not be limited to fighting the ACLU on their relatively inconsequential suits relating to displays in schools or courtrooms... they will be carried further into our legal system, influencing decisions on issues where Religion should play no part.

So, I guess my answer is that I feel we're about where we need to be in terms of being free to express our faith publically. Schools should feel free to educate their students on religion, as long as they do not promote religion. The only forum where I feel Religion has imposed itself on Law is in regards to Marriage, but aside from that, most Religious vs. Secular conflict is limited to the forum of good old fashioned American debate. For now. There are certainly many who would like to see a more Christian Theocratic United States... where abortion, adultery, premarital sex and the like are illegal... but I would hope that they would remember that Jesus Christ was not a Senator and never sought to change the Law of the Land to suit His worldview.

[travis2]

Thanks Scott...I don't know what to say...

[travis2]

What role should religion play in general public culture, education, and government? This isn't to debate the cons utionality of displaying the 10 Commandments in a public place, but rather to get your thoughts of what YOU consider to be ideal, whether it is state sponsered religion, or having things the way they are now.

I guess that depends on the definition of "having things the way they are now".

I guess I'd say that (as I see) the way things are now is a step in the right direction.

Ideal for me would be a complete reading and enforcement of the Establishment Clause. That is, remembering that the Clause consists of two parts, not just one.

For those who think they know what the Establishment Clause says...let me post it and see if you agree...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (italics are mine)

Most people who publicly fight "public" religion seem to either ignore the phrase in italics, or say that it counts for less than the first part of the Clause.

"Free exercise" means free exercise. If a streetcorner preacher wants to stand on the steps of City Hall and preach fire and brimstone, he/she should be allowed to do so without interference (other than requiring a proper permit, of a type that would be required for anyone to demonstrate on said City hall steps).

If a student wants to spend his lunch hour sitting in the cafeteria reading his/her Bible...there should be no interference.

If someone would like to erect a creche at Christmas in a public place...again, with the exception of procuring a proper permit, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. Same thing with a menorah. Or any other display.

Bible study classes on school grounds? Sure...after school, and subject to the same rules that any other group that uses school property is subject to. No more, no less.

I would have a bit of a problem with a comparative religion course at the high school level. Not for cons utional reasons, but for religious ones. Personally, I would prefer my kids receive their religious education from someone who is spending the time to properly prepare themselves in the tenets of my particular faith. Questions of faith tend to be the most difficult to answer, and are usually colored by the respondent's own faith beliefs. No matter how faith neutral the course would be, such questions would come up, and the answers would be given by someone with his/her own beliefs (or lack thereof). Some basic differences in comparing religions can lead to very tough questions, and a teacher ill-prepared to handle the level of discussion can easily confuse the kids.


I consider myself a "right-wing Christian". By that, I mean exactly what the words say. I am a Christian, and my political leanings are to the right. Yet there are those who equate the term "right-wing Christian" with someone waiting prayerfully for the religious theocracy to take over. This is arrant nonsense.

As a Catholic (which in some people's minds here is mutually exclusive of Christianity, but that's a topic for another thread), I would not particularly care for the seat of power in this country to emanate from Bob Jones University. Nor would I expect the Baptists in the country to stand still for a President ruling from the Chancery office here in SA. If those two examples don't meet your fancy, choose two others and their equivalent strongholds. It doesn't matter, the principle is the same. We are (for the most part) a religious people...but we are at the same time a secular society. And this is a good thing.

My faith is my own, which I am happy to share with anyone who asks. But I would never force it on anyone. Nor would I accept any restrictions on my own exercise of my faith. A theocratic society would by its very nature restrict the exercise of any faith that did not exactly match its own. Christians can't even agree among themselves about points of their own common faith...trying to rule Jews or Muslims or athiests or {fill in the blank here} under those terms would be impossible.

I think I've rambled enough for now...and maybe I've put a few things out there worth exploring below.


A note for Spurminator:

There are certainly many who would like to see a more Christian Theocratic United States... where abortion, adultery, premarital sex and the like are illegal...

I would very much like to see a more "Christian" United States...but see my post above about theocracy. I am certainly against all of the things you mention here...but I would not make "adultery, premarital sex and the like" illegal. They should certainly carry a social stigma however...and this is something that has weakened over the years. The stigma is right and deserved...but law shouldn't be involved.

I would disagree about abortion...but that's because I believe abortion is murder. And I would not make it completely illegal either...just predominantly. And once again...that's another topic for another thread.

[spurster]

I think I agree with Travis. If anybody, religious or not, wants to get on a soapbox or show religious or secular displays, they should all come under the same set of rules, i.e., permits, nuisance laws, etc. Ideally, the government should not sponsor, support, or favor any religious viewpoint over any other.

However, many of our laws have a religious basis, some more, some less. Marriage is perhaps the most obvious example, but one might make connections to less obvious examples like bankruptcy law (akin to the OT rule to forgive debts every seven years in that bankruptcy allows a fresh start). In that sense, there is no way to separate our religious morals/ethics from our lawmaking. If strict Islamic parties were in the majority, they would want laws conforming to their views.

Given that you can't completely separate church and state (worship and state, yes), I would take the libertarian-ish position that as long as I am not hurting anyone else by my actions, there should be no law against them. I would take a similar position for any group of adults; as long they are not injuring or coercing anyone inside or outside the group, there should be no law against what they do.

[FromWayDowntown]

First things first -- Travis, there are 2 religion clauses in the First Amendment (as you tacitly point out): one prohibiting the Establishment of religion (in Jeffersonianspeak, the proverbial "Wall of Separation" between church and State) and one guaranteeing the Free Exercise of religion.

The clauses operate, I think, in two different arenas. The Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of religion. . . ") is intended to protect the public as a whole from religious orthodoxy. To ensure that the rights and interests of the religious minority are never preyed upon by the majority through the instrumentality of the government. The Free Exercise Clause (". . . or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.") operates to protect the individual right to practice religion as that person sees fit.

The Establishment Clause keeps government out of religion and the Free Exercise Clause guarantees that each of us can choose, without any governmental imput or influence, our own religious or non-religious path in life. That, to me, is what the religion clauses must necessarily mean. If they don't mean that, neither serves any purpose: if government can hurdle the "wall of separation" by individual claims of free exercise, then the Establishment Clause is basically meaningless -- it would only provide for a prohibition against the creation of a state church, a proposition the Supreme Court rejected in Illinois v. McCollum.

The jurisprudence concerning these clauses is, I think, quite clear in terms of the scope afforded to each provision and the balancing that must take place in ensuring that the rights to be protected are actually vindicated.

What your post points out, I think, is that the implementation of the law has been poor. Perhaps it's because people don't take the time to read what has been decided; perhaps it's just because some people are ignorant that those decisions have been made; and perhaps it's simply a manifestation of a too-litigious society. Whatever the reason, I fully agree that the examples that you give (with the exception of the creche/nativity, in certain cir stances) are the point where establishment concerns must yield to the recognition of free exercise rights. Ironically, the Supreme Court has decided many of the cases you point to. In particular, with things like meetings of religious groups on school property after school hours, the Court has long ago concluded that discrimination based on the religiosity of the group is uncons utional. See Board of Education v. Mergens.

As I see it, government as an ins ution is absolutely required, by the Establishment Clause, to stay out of matters of religion. Thus, government, as an ins ution, has no business adopting, articulating, or attempting to promote or enforce particular religious viewpoints. Some say that such a suggestion defies the Original Intent of the Framers, but I've yet to see a convincing historical argument to support that theory. The historical evidence (particularly Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists (advancing the "wall of separation" theory, Madison's writings on religion (his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance, for example), certain writings of Ben Franklin, and Madison's Federalist 51) suggests that the Framers intended for government to steer clear in matters of religion -- to leave the inculcation of religious values to the people.

I will cede to this on one point: government is comprised of individuals, and individuals are necessarily provided with the right to free exercise. Thus, I have no particular problem with individual officers of the government (executives, legislators, judges, administrators, etc) acknowleding a particular religious viewpoint. There is no Cons utional concern when President Bush attends a prayer breakfast, goes to church, or invokes God in a speech. But to say that Jefferson's statement that "All men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. . . ." is somehow a clarion call for governmental endorsement of religion is unfathomable to me.

I have no belief that all Christian conservatives wish for the creation of a quasi-theocracy; in fact, my experience tells me that very few do. I'm thankful for that fact; I've always respected the religious viewpoints of all. But I also know that there are some who do wish for a State that is grounded and governed, fundamentally, in religious dogma. Obviously, I find such a possibility to be an hetical to the Cons utional guarantees of religious liberty; I also find that possibility to be quite frightening. Why on Earth should I be governed by their religious dogma? Is it enough that they have the majority on their side? I think not, since Cons utional rights in this society are never subject to majority votes.

Certainly, religion has a role in society -- people who choose to be guided by religious precepts and tenets in their daily lives will live according to those principles. On the whole, society is probably better off for that; it seems to me that the propagation of religious belief is a steadying force in society. But, again, I think the propagation of those particuar beliefs must come from the individual, rather than being inculcated by the governmental endorsement of particular orthodoxies.

Ours is a diverse country, full of varying religious viewpoints, each valuable to our society.

Ideally, government gets out of the way and allows each of us to embrace whatever beliefs we choose without any endorsement or coercion, be it subtle or overt.

[JoeChalupa]

Whether we acknowledge it or not religion is part of our culture no matter which country or culture you live in....at least I think it does.
I know that the basic laws of society are based on some type of religious beliefs if not just common sense. I'm no religion expert but I'd think it'd be safe to say that they all contain the basic rules of society. For Christians the rules happen to be the Ten Commandments, at least they are for me.
I would think that all religions would teach that stealing, killing, adultery, assault and other crimes are wrong.
But I could be wrong since some believe killing in the name of religion is right.
All I know is religion plays a big part in my life from the simple act of smiling at a stranger, to dropping some money into someone's hand at an intersection, to feeling sorrow when I see people from across the world living through a tsunami.

[scott]

Great comments so far.

On the other hand, large-scale reactions to expressions of faith can create a similar response to secularism.

This is an interesting subject, and two different reactions come to mind.

First, I absolutely agree that these "large-scale reactions to expressions of faith" do more to harm the cause of those staging the reaction then they do good. In some respects, I don't doubt that "secular extremism" has played a role in the move to the "moral right" in the recent elections. Unless these secular extremists are planning some type of anti-holy war, then the approach of directly attacking the faith of the majority probably isn't going to yield favorable results.

My second reaction has to do with the misperception in this country of what the word "secular" means, just as misperceptions as to what it means to be an "atheist" have prevailed. As I'm sure everyone who's participated in this thread up to now knows, secular means nothing more and nothing less than non-spiritual or not pertaining to any particular religious sect. What is so bad about that? Yet, the word secular has taken on a negative connotation in the eyes of many (partly in thanks to what I have referred to up to now as the "secular extremists"). Secularism has come to be tantamount to anti-religion, and it is assumed all secularists want to de-moralize the faithful into a band of roaming hedonists and heathens.

Sadly, I think there is a dangerous and perpetuating cycle at play in which the Religious Extremists and the Secular Extremists are putting moderate (or, sane) Americans at odds with each other. And for an Athiest such as myself, this is a losing battle as the Secular Extremists, in their quest to defeat the Religious Extremists, drive the moral moderates to the "values vote." It wouldn't totally surprise me to see a United States 50 or 100 years down the line that has reversed the secular movement and gone to more of a theocratic society. While this is a stretch, gay marriage bans are a first sign of this. Anytime it is suggested that the liberities of certain individuals be taken away based on the moral code of a percentage of the country, I think there is a problem.

However, many of our laws have a religious basis, some more, some less. Marriage is perhaps the most obvious example, but one might make connections to less obvious examples like bankruptcy law (akin to the OT rule to forgive debts every seven years in that bankruptcy allows a fresh start). In that sense, there is no way to separate our religious morals/ethics from our lawmaking. If strict Islamic parties were in the majority, they would want laws conforming to their views.

I disagree that our laws have a religious basis. I contend that both our laws and religion (in this case, Christianity) share a logical basis. In almost all cases, the laws which I have seen someone point to as having a Christian basis have existed in societies which pre-date Christianity. To me, saying US law is based on Christian morals is an excercise of convienence, especially considering that many of our early law makers were not Christians.

Again, I prefer to think of our laws as having a logical basis. If those logical bases happen to coincide with Religious morals, then score one for Religion for having a logical basis of its own.

[FromWayDowntown]

Looks like this discussion is petering out.

Doesn't anyone want to take up the argument for prayer time in public schools or for public displays of wholly religious symbols? Doesn't anyone want to cite historical precedent and suggest that America would be best off to acknowledge itself as a quasi-theocracy run by Christians? Doesn't anyone want to contend that the majority religious viewpoint should carry the day in debates about public religion?

[JoeChalupa]

I pray all the time in public places.
Every time we go out to eat we say grace.

[travis2]

Looks like this discussion is petering out.

Doesn't anyone want to take up the argument for prayer time in public schools or for public displays of wholly religious symbols? Doesn't anyone want to cite historical precedent and suggest that America would be best off to acknowledge itself as a quasi-theocracy run by Christians? Doesn't anyone want to contend that the majority religious viewpoint should carry the day in debates about public religion?

Don't need "prayer time" necessarily. "Quiet time" is sufficient...what is required is for the non-religious zealots to get off the backs of those who choose to use that time for prayer.

Public displays of religious symbols...I believe I did cover that. As far as I'm concerned, they should be allowed. So long as the displayer gets a proper permit for such a display, I don't see why they should be excluded. It should be completely non-discriminatory...any group should have equal opportunity to display.

As to the points about quasi-theocracy and majority religious viewpoint...I think I made my position quite clear there as well. Sorry if I'm not wacko enough.

[JoeChalupa]

Call me mean but I think "prayer time" is when ever you feel like praying.
I don't need nobody's permission to do it.

[Duff McCartney]

What role should religion play in general public culture, education, and government?

None.

[travis2]

What role should religion play in general public culture, education, and government?

None.

You will never remove religion from the general public culture. Like it or not, we are a religious people, for the most part.

And there is nothing wrong with having religion be part of the general public culture. Isn't culture supposed to be the expression of the mores and tastes of the people? Are you now advocating censorship?

Yeah, "art" like a crucifix in a cup of urine is acceptable...but a religious bent to some part of culture is not.

[Duff McCartney]

I'm not advocating anything...all I'm saying is religion shouldn't be part of anything in the world. That's all I'm saying.

[Duff McCartney]

Yeah, "art" like a crucifix in a cup of urine is acceptable...but a religious bent to some part of culture is not.

Actually a crucifix in a cup of urine sounds pretty funny to me...where'd you see that at?

[travis2]

I'm not advocating anything...all I'm saying is religion shouldn't be part of anything in the world. That's all I'm saying.

Why? What's it to you? You are OK with smut being part of the world...what's wrong with religion as well?

[Hook Dem]

I'm not advocating anything...all I'm saying is religion shouldn't be part of anything in the world. That's all I'm saying.

See!!! You're the extreme on the other end of the scale. Why can't we have some middle ground?

[JoeChalupa]

All for the middle.

[FromWayDowntown]

Don't need "prayer time" necessarily. "Quiet time" is sufficient...what is required is for the non-religious zealots to get off the backs of those who choose to use that time for prayer.

Public displays of religious symbols...I believe I did cover that. As far as I'm concerned, they should be allowed. So long as the displayer gets a proper permit for such a display, I don't see why they should be excluded. It should be completely non-discriminatory...any group should have equal opportunity to display.

As to the points about quasi-theocracy and majority religious viewpoint...I think I made my position quite clear there as well. Sorry if I'm not wacko enough.

Travis, I wasn't going at you. I think I have previously acknowledged your post and generally agreed with much of what you said. My point was merely an effort to solicit additional discussion regarding a topic that I find interesting. If it seemed a solicitation to espouse "wacko" viewpoints, my apologies. I threw out questions that are an hetical to my beliefs on this subject, hoping that someone who disagrees would engage me and offer an argument. You can learn a lot from those who oppose your viewpoints, after all.

I do have a question when it comes to public displays of religious symbols -- I agree with you about private individuals erecting religious displays. I can't see how the Cons ution can preclude such acts without interfering with the Free Exercise right. I do think, though, that a permitting process would start to come close to governmental entanglement with religion, particularly if the government accepted some permits and denied others, and couldn't articulate a religion-neutral reason for doing so. (I realize that your hypothetical supposes no discrimination, but the existence of some degree of discrimination is very difficult to legislate out of political life) I would think that would apply primarily to a situation where a Christian group receives a permit to erect a public Christian-based display, but a group of another religious bent (Muslims, Satanists, Santarians, Atheists, whatever) is denied the opportunity to do the same. At that point, the government is, I think, endorsing particular religious viewpoints (and, perhaps, endorsing religion over non-religion, in some cases).

The other question about overtly religious displays in the public square is this: does your statement stand up when the government is the en y displaying the symbol? That is, if the city government decides to erect a public display that includes religious symbolism, is there a cons utional implication? I know the Court has decided the issue, but is there a basis for re-thinking those conclusions?

[violentkitten]

Looks like this discussion is petering out.

Doesn't anyone want to take up the argument for prayer time in public schools or for public displays of wholly religious symbols? Doesn't anyone want to cite historical precedent and suggest that America would be best off to acknowledge itself as a quasi-theocracy run by Christians? Doesn't anyone want to contend that the majority religious viewpoint should carry the day in debates about public religion?

i would but i have this thing called 'life' man

[travis2]

Travis, I wasn't going at you. I think I have previously acknowledged your post and generally agreed with much of what you said. My point was merely an effort to solicit additional discussion regarding a topic that I find interesting. If it seemed a solicitation to espouse "wacko" viewpoints, my apologies. I threw out questions that are an hetical to my beliefs on this subject, hoping that someone who disagrees would engage me and offer an argument. You can learn a lot from those who oppose your viewpoints, after all.

I do have a question when it comes to public displays of religious symbols -- I agree with you about private individuals erecting religious displays. I can't see how the Cons ution can preclude such acts without interfering with the Free Exercise right. I do think, though, that a permitting process would start to come close to governmental entanglement with religion, particularly if the government accepted some permits and denied others, and couldn't articulate a religion-neutral reason for doing so. (I realize that your hypothetical supposes no discrimination, but the existence of some degree of discrimination is very difficult to legislate out of political life) I would think that would apply primarily to a situation where a Christian group receives a permit to erect a public Christian-based display, but a group of another religious bent (Muslims, Satanists, Santarians, Atheists, whatever) is denied the opportunity to do the same. At that point, the government is, I think, endorsing particular religious viewpoints (and, perhaps, endorsing religion over non-religion, in some cases).

The other question about overtly religious displays in the public square is this: does your statement stand up when the government is the en y displaying the symbol? That is, if the city government decides to erect a public display that includes religious symbolism, is there a cons utional implication? I know the Court has decided the issue, but is there a basis for re-thinking those conclusions?

I didn't think you were going at me...but I did interpret your call as a solicitation for "wackos". My apologies.

I agree the underlying assumption to my "religious display" response is a completely transparent and neutral response to a request for a permit. Obviously, the devil would be in the details...and that is certainly worthy of discussion.

I need to review the Court's decisions on the matter of governmental displays, to be honest...but my initial response would be that it should parallel the process for private displays on government property. Again...details, details, details would be important...

[FromWayDowntown]

I didn't think you were going at me...but I did interpret your call as a solicitation for "wackos". My apologies.

I agree the underlying assumption to my "religious display" response is a completely transparent and neutral response to a request for a permit. Obviously, the devil would be in the details...and that is certainly worthy of discussion.

I need to review the Court's decisions on the matter of governmental displays, to be honest...but my initial response would be that it should parallel the process for private displays on government property. Again...details, details, details would be important...

It is all about the details, but the details, I think, are how Establishment Clause cases are decided anymore. If the government was completely religion-neutral to public displays -- if the government permitted Satanists to erect their displays in the same places and at the same times as Christians -- there would be no reason for concern. But in the real world filled with political pressures, it's difficult to imagine that there would actually be acquiescence to a display that some would deem offensive for its message alone. Once you get to that reality, I think the permitting idea runs into some problems, given the current state of Establishment jurisprudence.

As for those cases, look at Lynch v. Donnelly and Allegheny v. ACLU. FWIW -- If you can deduce a coherent rule from them, I think you'll be the first. Apparently, the Court draws the line somewhere after the plastic reindeer or snowman leave teh scene . . . .