WorldNetDaily:
What has been a decades long struggle to remove religion from the public square has left us with the de facto government establishment of atheism. With the establishment of atheism in America we can no longer count ourselves a secularist democratic nation for we are no longer a nation of tolerance for all religions, but rather a nation of increasing intolerance toward religion. We are transitioning from a secularist nation of religious inclusion to a nation of religious exclusion, an atheocracy.
Chuck and Stephanie Fromm already have been fined $300 for holding Bible studies for their friends at their home, and they face the potential for additional fines of $500 for each study held, according to a legal team taking their case to court.
The newest conflict over Bible studies in homes in America arose in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., where city officials say city code section 9-3.301 prohibits religious organizations in residential neighborhoods without a conditional-use permit, a sometimes very expensive procedure.
The code cites "churches, temples, synagogues, monasteries, religious retreats, and other places of religious worship and other fraternal and community service organizations."
What has been a decades long struggle to remove religion from the public square has left us with the de facto government establishment of atheism. With the establishment of atheism in America we can no longer count ourselves a secularist democratic nation for we are no longer a nation of tolerance for all religions, but rather a nation of increasing intolerance toward religion. We are transitioning from a secularist nation of religious inclusion to a nation of religious exclusion, an atheocracy.
There has never been and never will be an atheocratic democracy, for democratic ideals demand that all individuals and all groups be allowed to inform governance while atheocratic states demand silence from religious groups. In America's case that silencing of the religiously assembled is based on "separation of church and state". But there is no "separation of church and state", there is only this:
- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
but amid the progressive bureaucratic desire for atheocratic governance the religion clauses have not been so much forgotten as distorted into a tool to silence the voice of some who choose to assemble leaving only atheists at the table.
America is loosing its democratic soul.
out
You predicate your post on a profound misunderstanding of separation of church and state, which is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. They later buttressed this separation with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
ReplyDeleteJames Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
It is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Thanks for a whale of a comment.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is predicated on false claims of infringement of the first religious clause and follows the progressive interpretation of the religious clauses in which is found in the shadows of rationalization the "separation of church and state."
You also forget that the Constitution was not written by a single individual to be defined at a later date. It was written through the consensus of many and it is to that consensus of many I point:
---"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."---
The first and second clause describe restraints on Congress in respect to religion. There are no such constraints, however, on religious influence in governance. Therefore, the religious clauses reflect a separation of state from church, not a "separation of church and state".
It is only by way of faulty rational tucked away near the end of your comment that you find your way to separation of "church and state" by separating church from state.
You argue:
---"The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government."---
You seem to find that government infringes on the first clause when individuals exercise the second despite the fact that in none of what you describe as ("individuals performing their official duties") is law being created by Congress.
The first clause is specific to the constraints of Congress creating law and says nothing of "individuals performing their official duties." You falsely conflate the defined constraints of Congress in the realm of religion with the general operations of governance.
Your false claims of first clause infringement result in genuine infringement of the second clause when you call for the removal of church from state.
But, then, isn't that the goal of the progressive, statist, atheist union --- the undemocratic silencing and marginalization of a particular group?
Separation of church and state is not a leftie-rightie issue. Enough said about that.
ReplyDeleteNor is it a recent invention of the courts. During his presidency, Madison also vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. He pocket vetoed a third bill that would have exempted from import duties plates to print Bibles.
Nor is the principle a product of some "liberal" judges. The Supreme Court justices have generally agreed unanimously that the Constitution separates church and state and have differed only on how to apply that principle in particular cases.
You seem to make much of the First Amendment's reference to "Congress" and "law." Do you suppose that means the President could, by proclamation, establish a national religion? Or could the Executive declare the views of a particular sect of Christianity to be true, but stop short of officially declaring that sect to be our national religion? Or could the Executive direct all federal agencies to use stationery bearing statements touting the virtues of Scientology? Simple semantics may lead one astray. No court has ever agreed with the silliness you urge--and with good reason.
Congress itself cannot make any law whatsoever without the approval of the President, except in the instance of overriding a President's veto, so to read the language simplistically and literally would actually do violence to the intent of the Amendment. As laws in the ordinary course are "made" by actions by both Congress and the Executive, the establishment clause is reasonably understood to constrain both branches of government. An overly literal reading would, I suppose, only stop Congress from overriding a veto to make a law establishing a religion--a manifestly silly result.
Moreover, as the Constitution designs the Executive to carry out laws that have been passed by Congress and does not give the Executive any independent power to establish religion, the establishment clause is reasonably understood to constrain the Executive in its carrying out of laws that Congress passed. That is the way James Madison understood the clause; in his Detached Memoranda, he explained that "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts" are not consistent with it. If the clause were interpreted to leave the Executive free, by proclamation or some such, to establish a religion, what really would be the point of the clause? No, such an interpretation would enable the Executive to eviscerate the purpose of the clause.
I do not often get comments of this caliber, and again I thank you.
ReplyDeleteAside from attempting to claim a perspective of objectivity when writing ... "Separation of church and state is not a leftie-rightie issue." ... I do not know what you gain making this statement, as it is obviously not true.
Yours is a leftist approach to constitutional discussion that relies entirely on the interpretations of others. Such a hear/say approach is necessary, though, when creating an argument that is little reflected in a Constitution that restrains the power of governance.
Just as placing the ordained between the masses and the Bible empowered the Medieval Catholic Church, so too does placing Judges or Justices between the masses and the Constitution empower the judiciary and, hence, governance. I understand the statist lust for Medieval Catholic power, but do we need to repeat the climate that resulted in the reformation?
It is for this reason that I "seem to make much of the First Amendment's reference to "Congress" and "law" I refer directly to what the Constitution says; I do not need a translator.
And, for instance, when you ask...
---"Do you suppose that means the President could, by proclamation, establish a national religion? Or could the Executive declare the views of a particular sect of Christianity to be true, but stop short of officially declaring that sect to be our national religion? Or could the Executive direct all federal agencies to use stationery bearing statements touting the virtues of Scientology? Simple semantics may lead one astray."---
...I look to the Constitution and find no such powers of proclamation that are equal to law reserved to the executive. Even if you are refering to executive orders which can carry the weight of law, executive orders are issued under specific statutory authority from Congress and are, therefore, limited to the restraints of Congress found in the Constitution.
Perhaps such powers can be found in the your hear/say approach to Constitutional Law, or perhaps simple conjecture, but they can not be found in the Constitution itself.
No, there is no reading of the Constitution which would enable the Executive to eviscerate the purpose of the religious clauses.
There may be, however, and interpretation based on conjecture that does.
I gather you deny not only that central feature of the Constitution known as separation of church and state, but that other feature known as judicial review.
ReplyDeleteBecause the Constitution does not specify what the judicial powers encompass, that question needed to be resolved. Early in our nation's history, it was--in Marbury v. Madison. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that it was the legislature's role to make the laws and the court's role to decide and declare what the law is. The Court further held that in deciding what the law is with respect to the Constitution, the Court necessarily must decide whether a particular statute enacted by Congress conforms to the Constitution. I suppose the Congress or the President, co-equal branches of the government (comprised largely of founders at the time), or the People could have challenged the Court's power to decide that it had the power it said it had, but they did not and instead accepted and ratified the Court's decision. And now their collective decision is part of the bedrock of our Constitutional law and history. You, I gather, don't like that aspect of our nation and would like to turn back the clock and argue for a different approach (exactly what isn't clear since our nation has never known any other approach).
I do not deny what you refer to as "that central feature of the Constitution known as separation of church and state", as I can not deny that which does not exist.
ReplyDeleteMuch as some may hypothetically argue for the existence of a teapot in tight orbit around the sun and buttress their beliefs on the common acceptance of such belief despite its unprovability, you seem to believe in the existence of a separation between church and state that can be found only in the words of others despite the glaring absence of such in the words of the Constitution itself. The blinding degree of faith an individual can put in the words of others amazes me.
That aside, I do reject the interpretation of separation of church and state in favor of what is written in the Constitution, a separation of state from church.
I am surprised by your attack based on judicial review as I had expected an attack based on stare decisis. Lets see what the Constitution says in the matter of judicial review:
--"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."--
Ours is a Constitution of limited powers and in that light its treatment of the Supreme Court is one of great leeway. I see no limitation on judicial review and, in fact, see judicial review as an obvious component in the machinery of our Constitution, for without there would be no check on the power of the executive and legislative (Pelosi, Reid, Obama) in collusion.
It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court is subject to the will of the citizenry via the amendment process.
If you accept the Supreme Court's authority to declare what the law is and the Supreme Court has declared (as it has) that the principle of separation of church and state is the law, how is it that you yet maintain that this principle "does not exist." The most you can say, it would seem, is that you disagree with the Supreme Court on this point (which, of course, is your right).
ReplyDeleteI do not understand what you mean by your distinction between (1) separation of church and state (which you do not see in the Constitution) and (2) separation of state from church (which you do see in the Constitution).
You said:
ReplyDelete==="If you accept the Supreme Court's authority to declare what the law is and the Supreme Court has declared (as it has) that the principle of separation of church and state is the law, how is it that you yet maintain that this principle "does not exist."===
Because what you refer to as a "constitutional principle of separation of church and state" can not be found in word or intent in the Constitution. It exists only in the realm of interpretation.
While the Supreme Court can void law based on its interpretation of the Constitution, such interpretation does not change the intent of the Constitution.
For example, the Supreme Court has found its interpretation of the Constitution wrong in other instances (racial)and has been forced to correct itself. Throughout the court's wayward journey the Constitution remained the same in word and intent. Therefore those who claimed the first interpretation was a "Constitutional principle" were wrong.
Simply put, constitutional interpretation is subject to constitutional intent.
Yet you conflate constitutional intent with judicial interpretation thereof and produce statements like "The constitutional principle of separation of church" where none exists outside of interpretation.
==="I do not understand what you mean by your distinction between (1) separation of church and state (which you do not see in the Constitution) and (2) separation of state from church (which you do see in the Constitution)."===
Because the religious clauses restrain the government from interfering with religion. They do not restrain religion from influencing government as long as that influence does not run afoul the first clause's restraints on establishing a particular religion by government or the first clause's restrictions on interfering with the establishment of a religion.
Thus, (1) the state is separated from church while (2)church is not separated from state. The more commonly known "separation of church and state" is the sloppy and incorrect marriage of the two.
Okay, I think I understand your "does not exist" point. It appears to be simply a semantically different way of saying you disagree with the Supreme Court's current view and think the Court should change that view in the future along the lines of your own view. I suppose any of us could say the same about any court decision with which we disagree.
ReplyDeleteYour description of your distinction between separation of church and state and separation of state from church appears much like the notion advocated by some who would like to use government to promote their religion that the First Amendment works only in one direction--to protect churches from government, but not the other way around. This, they suppose, would leave them (and churches) free to insinuate their religion into government and thereby effectively establish it as the nation's religion. To the extent that the First Amendment prevents that, it can be said to protect government from churches. Indeed, the notion of a one directional wall is self-contradictory: If any church is free to so influence and control government and thereby achieve a favored or established status, all individuals are at risk of their religions falling into disfavor with government and facing discriminatory treatment. One of the primary aims of the First Amendment is to prevent just that.
While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision ("no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed") and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment's terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion--stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
Much in keeping with your expressed views, the constitutional separation of church and state does not prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect. The Wake Forest paper nicely summarizes these aspects of the law.
Doug Indeap, if you make it back, I'd like to thank you once again for your comments as your challenges have forced me to explore new territory.
ReplyDeleteDon't take this as an implied demand for an end to this conversation, but I try to leave the last word to my commenters.
I appreciate your thoughtful approach to these issues and your direct yet civil manner of expressing your points.
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting and engaging in discussion notwithstanding my tendency to gas on a bit in my comments.