There are various approaches to pamphleteering on the Internet. Most of us are familiar with how bloggers spread their views. A different approach, however, is by its nature more obscure. That is the commenter who posts the same long and detailed comment everywhere he can.
The first time I saw such a comment I was sort of flattered and amazed. Who would do so much work just to refute me? Fortunately, my curiosity worked against such an ego trip. Taking advantage of the wonders of Google I did a search. Sure enough, I had no particular reason to feel so flattered. 
The last such pamphleteering comment on my little website came from Doug Indeap (see here) on this post, AN EXCUSE TO BE OFFENDED . Here is a list of some of the places Indeap has posted variations of or a portion of the same comment.
- Back to the Constitution provides a concise explanation of the origin of the the phrase: Separation Of Church And State
- Video: The Truth About “Separation of Church and State” provides a teenager’s point of view.
- In his version of the Separation of Church and State, Mr. Garner Goes To Washington very carefully explains what is wrong with the oft used phrase, “separation of church and state.”
- The Emerging Scholars Blog, on the other hand, asks an interesting — and the crucial — question: Is God Relevant in the Public Square?
While Doug Indeap’s comment is carefully reasoned, it is not well reasoned. What follows is an explanation of why I hold that opinion.
For starters, please take the time to read Is God Relevant in the Public Square? I think you will find this post well worth the effort. Is God Relevant in the Public Square? considers the alternative options we have for dealing with the subject of faith in the public square. With Option #3, Is God Relevant in the Public Square? offers our nation’s traditional solution.
This third option is the one for which Guinness argues. In such a public square, all faiths (and non-faiths) are welcome. In such a public square, persuasion is used, not coercion.
Unfortunately, I don’t think this third option is what Doug Indeap advocates. If you look at the video I posted on AN EXCUSE TO BE OFFENDED , it is about a 75 year old cross. Presumably Indeap viewed the video. The cross he thinks violates his religious freedom is about as close to the middle of nowhere as you can get in the lower 48 states. Nonetheless, Indeap still (albeit politely) takes exception to this so-called promotion of religion by government — even though veterans paid for this 75 year old cross.
Indeap either too much fears or reviles any evidence of God in the public square. Perhaps Indeap confuses secular government with the secularization of the public square. There is a clear difference.
Because we are self-aware, we are inherently religious creatures. Because we think, we wonder why. How did we come to be? Although our search is too often aimless, many of us live much of our lives in a quest to know the answer. We debate, we argue, and sometimes we fight over our differing conclusions.
What history has too often demonstrated is that a politically powerful faction will often try to use government to enforce its religious views upon everyone else. In spite of the 1st Amendment, the United States is no exception. In our era, many, particularly many of our elites, have no use for religion. Thus the citizenry must be vigilant against secularism. To ensure each of us can practice our own particular religious beliefs (both in private and in public), we must stand up for each other’s right to practice religion. As a People we must ensure our government leaders do not abuse their powers to either stifle one religion or to promote another.
Forced secularization of the public square is the stifling of religious belief. Look at Arlington Cemetery. Would you have the Christian crosses and the Jewish stars expunged from the tombstones? Would you have the crosses removed? Would you deface the image of Christ? Look at what the secularists demand. The majority religion of the United States is Christianity; that the secularists would have us forget. Christian belief is integral to our history, but the secularists say no way. Christianity is at the foundation of both our culture and our method of government, but the secularists insist it never was.
Without Christianity, could the United States exist as we know it? If you were educated only in the public schools, you may think the answer is yes. However, without Christianity, we would not have religious freedom in the United States. Look at at the Declaration of Independence. God is where it all began.
To secularize the public square is to insist we deny and ignore the truth of our nation’s origins. Secularization creates an unsupportable fantasy. What was the Founder’s objective? Did they create a secular government to protect or to deny the practice of religious belief?
We cannot give into the secularization of the public square. If we continue giving ground, not just our government, but we too, including our families and our children, must become more and more secularized. Yet when he argues for the secularization of the public square, that is what Indeap risks advocating.
Tom, I agree with most of what you have said (and I need to go back when I have more time to read all your links and catch up with your last post…there is a lot here). Indeap doesn’t mention all the secular representations, monuments, etc. we already have. So why not let all the religions have their places, too? If you don’t like a statue, you can move to the next one or ignore all of them. That’s why it’s a free country, right?
Citizen Tom,
I think that, despite reading much of what I’ve written here and there, you misunderstand what I’ve said in some important respects. You and I may disagree less than you suppose.
For one, I too have emphasized the importance of distinguishing “government” from the “public square.” As you now write that “[t]here is a clear difference” between a secular government and secularization of the public square, I gather that you and I agree on the importance of this distinction.
Similarly, it is important to distinguish “individual” speech from “government” speech. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly (i.e., in the public square) as well as privately. The “establishment” clause 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 their classrooms), they should conduct themselves in accordance with the establishment clause constraints on government. When performing those duties, they effectively are the government. When acting in their individual capacities, however, they are free to exercise their religion as they please–again publicly as well as privately. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, though, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is acting in an official or private capacity in any given circumstance can be complex, recognizing the distinction is critical.
For another, I commented on your post by pointing out some basic aspects of the principle of separation of church and state without offering, as you suppose, any opinion on the constitutionality of the cross you mention. As I understand it, whether the display of a monument is considered individual speech by the person(s) donating the monument to the government or government speech by the government accepting it for display on its land will be decided as a matter of fact in each case depending on the particulars. Generally, if a monument is displayed “by” a government on its land, then that likely will be regarded as “government speech” to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause. If a monument is displayed by a private person or group on government land, it may well be regarded as “individual speech” to be evaluated under the free exercise clause. In the latter case, the government, of course, cannot discriminate against particular religions and thus generally must allow other persons or groups equal opportunity to express their religious views on the government land. How all this will play out in the case of the cross you mention, I don’t know. My interest is less in the result in this particular case and more in assuring that the principle of separation of church and state is preserved and not diminished in the process.
Doug Indeap – I fear there is less misunderstanding than you suppose. We are coming at this dispute from different directions. Whereas you view this issue from the perspective of “wise” court decisions, I think the role of judges should be comparatively small — a last resort.
The First Amendment is intended as a check on government, not the People. When the People want to express to their thanks to the Almighty, the First Amendment is not intended to stop them. When the People want to raise their children to wisely fear the Lord our God, the First Amendment was never intended to stop them. When the People wish to decorate their public buildings in a way that recognizes their religious heritage, the First Amendment says nothing. No religious artwork! How absurd! When the People want to express their hope in salvation and to lovingly honor their dead, the First Amendment is silent.
The fourteenth amendment became law in 1868. School prayer did not become an issue until the 1960′s. That is when the Federal judges start pushing Christianity out of the public square. Instead of deferring to original the intent of Constitution, case law, and long established tradition, the courts have used the excuse of a “living” Constitution to slow warp our society to their own vision of “fairness.”
We have elected representatives. These people too swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. When we do not like their interpretation, we can refuse to reelect them. Federal judges, unfortunately, serve until they die. Given the advantage of more foresight, I suspect the Founders would have done something about such unaccountability.
We have Elections for a reason. We were constructed as a Federation for a reason. We are a Republic (versus a Democracy) for a reason. The Founders regarded government as a necessary evil. So they placed checks on GOVERNMENT POWER. When GOVERNMENT POWER grows beyond bounds, people start fighting and killing each other. When we arrogantly strain for each others throats, we hope our judges will hold us back, not cheer on one of the factions.
Unfortunately, for at least the last half century, judges have seen themselves as agents of “change,” not stability. Instead of restraining the unconstitutional growth of GOVERNMENT POWER, our judges have been unable to restrain themselves from sticking their noses where they don’t belong.
“When the People want to express to their thanks to the Almighty, the First Amendment is not intended to stop them. When the People want to raise their children to wisely fear the Lord our God, the First Amendment was never intended to stop them. When the People wish to decorate their public buildings in a way that recognizes their religious heritage, the First Amendment says nothing. No religious artwork! How absurd! When the People want to express their hope in salvation and to lovingly honor their dead, the First Amendment is silent.”
And when people wish to express their beliefs in Allah? Jehovah? The Great Chain of Being?
kgotthardt – Here is a link to George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention. Can you tell me the name of the God for whom he offered up the thanks of a grateful nation? Is it not enough that Washington did so?
What happened to your distinction between the government and the public square? You seem to have touted the importance with the difference–and then disregarded it.
In your latest comment, you speak of “the People” doing this or that free of any constraint by the First Amendment. This formulation may obscure some important distinctions. Under the Constitution, when “the People” act collectively through their government, they (it) are constrained by the First Amendment not to take steps toward establishment of religion. When “the People” act individually, they (and each of them) are guaranteed by the First Amendment their freedom to exercise their religious views. If “the People” as individuals want to express and promote their religious views, they can have at it–provided, of course, they do so in keeping with the general laws governing the conduct of everyone, e.g., those concerning traffic, property damage, and the like. If “the People” as a government want to express and promote their religious views, they run afoul of the First Amendment–and the courts, we can be thankful, are there to uphold the Constitution’s prohibition and stop them in their tracks.
With respect to school prayer, again what happened to the distinction between government and public square? The courts did not “start pushing Christianity out of the public square,” unless you conflate public square with the government (in the form of public schools) taking steps toward establishment of religion (by compelling children to attend public schools and, after having assembled them, conducting religious activities with them).
You also mention the role of the courts and the 14th Amendment–two large topics. I’ll keep my already overly long comment(s) brief by remaining focused on the intended scope of the First Amendment–and again invite your attention to Madison’s instructive discussion in his Detached Memoranda.
Doug Indeap – Are public officials people or are they our robots?
I never accepted your argument that public officials do not have a right to their religious beliefs. When government insists that everyone practice secularism 8 – 10 hours a day, we enforce attitudes, and we selectively dismiss anything that smacks of religious belief. Thereby we risk establishing Human Secularism as the state religion.
Consider this quote.
The mere fact you or I find someone else’s actions offensive does not step upon our rights or endanger our religious freedom. If you not a Christian, and you live in a majority Christian country, that is just the way it is. Everybody else is not obligated to tiptoe around your feelings.
Nevertheless, it is not polite or politic to offend our fellow citizens needlessly. It is also not right; every citizen owns America’s public lands and everyone pays taxes, not just Christians. The problem is who decides what is constitutes needless offense?
Such problems have much to do with why we elect people to public office. Popular government is about popularity. We elect politicians to represent our interests in government, and politicians get elected by being sensitive to the interests of their constituents. Judges, on the other hand, are appointed for life. Hence, it is better when judges stick to what they know, deciding issues which are clearly matters of law.
Consider your own quote of James Madison.
Madison served as president how long ago? In order to have your way, judges have been in fact overturning well established traditions and legitimate legal precedents. Because judges have not been impartial — because judges are taking sides, we have the expression “activist judge.”
Horace Mann became famous for his role in public school advocacy in 1830′s. The Bible was then a popular text book. State and local governments, however, not the Federal Government, slowly modified the focus of public school instruction shifting it from the Bible. The Supreme Court’s intrusion was unnecessary; it just infuriated people.
We cannot assume the Federal Courts know the right answer. We do not even know if there is one right answer. Federalism allows for experimentation and adaptation. Congressional and Supreme Court mandates hamper both. In addition, when state and local governments have appropriate autonomy, they can make more people happy. A decision that is popular in New Jersey may flop in Texas.
One additional thought. Some people like the public school system. One reason is they want us all to be one BIG HAPPY!. That is, because the subject of religious instruction has become so difficult in the public school system, we end up with bland, meaningless, multicultural nonsense instead. There are some who find such nonsense quite profound.
Because educators in the public schools are unable to frankly disgust the subject of religion, educators cannot provide young people serious instruction in ethics. Yet religion and ethics provide the foundation of any good education.
If a little knowledge is dangerous, then imagine the danger pose by someone with a good technical education, but without a sound understanding of the difference between right and wrong. For example, can you imagine how much damage Nazis and Communist educators did to the children of their fellow citizens? Whereas our public educators leave a void, Nazis and Communists tried to fill that void with something more sinister. Heaven help us when our government tries to do the same.
Citizen Tom,
I never argued that public officials do not have a right to their religious beliefs; indeed, I said just the opposite. It remains critical, though, to distinguish between when they act as individuals and when they act as the government.
Since the government can only act through the individuals in its employ (elected, appointed, etc.), how would you implement the establishment and free exercise clauses? What effect, if any, would you give to the establishment clause? If each and every one of our public servants were free to exercise his or her religion not only on their own time (so to speak) but also in the course of performing his or her governmental duties, what, if any, limit is there on government acting to establish religion? When those individuals act on behalf of the government, they ARE the government. The notion that the freedom of religion clause swallows or trumps the establishment clause would, apart from doing violence to the plain language and intent of the First Amendment, radically alter the way our government functions.
Again, whether I or others take “offense” is entirely beside the point. Under the Constitution, the government has no business promoting this or that religion regardless of whether anyone is offended. It’s just beyond the government’s authority.
You quoted Madison, but to what end I can’t tell. Madison’s point was that the occasional (we can only hope) missteps by the government with respect to promoting religion should not be regarded as “legitimate precedent” justifying ever more missteps. Rather, he suggested that if we cannot actually undo or reverse them, at least we should pass them off as trifles or mistakes and not use them as excuses or justification for having government take even more steps toward establishment of religion.
Your equation of religion with morality and ethics is yet another large topic I’ll leave for another day. For now, suffice it to say that I do not subscribe to the idea.
Doug Indeap – Have you ever heard of a burial at sea? Do you imagine warriors would cast one of their brothers overboard without asking one of their officers to pray for the blessing of Almighty God? Yet that burial would be an official government function.
As Washington understood, the Founders intended that First Amendment prevent the establishment of a state sponsored religion. They did not intend that the United States be a place that would make atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Muslims, or those of any other religion happier than Christians. They regarded the United States as a Christian nation, a faith that allows everyone to practice their own religious beliefs.
So although we may argue about whether to put “In God We Trust” on the currency, we do it anyway. Even though we know the currency cannot be trusted, we know the Lord can be trusted, and that thought comforts us even as our leaders continually devalue the dollar.
Think about what you call critical. What is important is whether government officials do what they are hired to do. Will a government official fail to do his or her job because he or she is a good Christian? The thought strikes me as absurd, and I wonder why you worry.
In any case, when I can avoid it, I think it best not to entrust anything critical to government. When we needed teachers for our children, my wife and I hired those of our choice. When we needed a doctor in whom we have confidence, we hired one of our choice.
Unfortunately, some things do not allow such a resolution. Government must provide for the common defense and run our legal system. Yet odd as it may seem to you, belief in God belongs in government. When our officials take the oath of office, we insist they swear on the Holy Book. And when we testify in the courtroom, we do the same.
If you truly want fewer intrusive reminders God, may I kindly suggest less government?
I think the refernce to Madison clear. Nonetheless, I will happily clarify further.
Madison is rightly famous for the Bill of Rights and for promoting religious freedom. By and large, his efforts were successful. We do have religious freedom. Nonetheless, the “trifles” he mentioned remained entirely in effect until the 1960′s. At that point, those “trifles” had become well-established traditions, and they were well secured by legal precedent. So judges had no business arbitrarily making such “trifles” illegal.
There is a prayer you may wish to read (see here). Even if you have no regard for God, you may find wisdom in the prayer.
As much as you (or James Madison) may wish otherwise, there are limits to our ability and our right to stifle the trifling religious beliefs of others. Yet what is beyond our ability is a trifle for God. Let Him worry about those things you cannot change.
Citizen Tom,
How the government should attend to the religious beliefs of sailors and others (e.g., soldiers and prisoners) the government has removed from general society (where they may more readily attend to their own beliefs themselves) admittedly is a difficulty–one BTW Madison also addresses in his Detached Memoranda. As the government controls the entirety of these individuals’ lives and has taken them where they cannot otherwise see to their own perceived needs for religious activities, there is more reason and need for the government to bear some responsibility for making it possible for them to practice their religion–perhaps by supplying chaplains or bringing in ministers and such if possible or having officers “pinch hit” to themselves perform some sort of religious service.
You attribute to me a worry about whether a good Christian could successfully do whatever he or she is hired to do in a government job. How that idea came to you, I don’t know. I join you in regarding it absurd. A good Christian can, I trust, perform a government job perfectly well without using it as a platform for proselytizing every bit as much as can a good Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc. In doing so, the good Christian need not sacrifice his or her own religious views, but rather merely refrain from using his or her official position to promote those views.
BTW, when our officials take the oath of office, we DO NOT “insist that they swear on the Holy Book.” The Constitution guards against just that, declaring that “all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Art. VI, § 3. To be sure, the government has prescribed some oaths that include saying “so help me God” and some that do not. In all instances, though, individuals have the option to “affirm” or “declare,” rather than “swear,” their oaths, in which cases the religious phrase is omitted.
In much of what you write is the sense that someone seeks to “stifle” the religious beliefs of Christians. It bears reiterating that the establishment clause constrains only the government. It is only if individuals, perhaps comprising a majority, try to bend the government to do their bidding by promoting their religion that they would find the establishment clause an impediment–as they should. As individuals they remain free to exercise their religion to their hearts’ content privately and publicly. One would think that would be enough.
I’m struck too by your nonchalance at government actions that violate the First Amendment, at least by Madison’s reckoning, and your eagerness to accord those unconstitutional actions the status of “traditions” that should, I gather, thereafter be regarded as implicit exceptions to the First Amendment. How does that square with your objection to the notion of a “living” Constitution slowly warping society?
“Can you tell me the name of the God for whom he offered up the thanks of a grateful nation? Is it not enough that Washington did so?”
However, it seems you promote religious freedom for some but not all. If a citizen wishes to place a cross in a public area and is allowed to do so, then a Pagan, say, can do the same.
General Observations
Exceptions. That is the problem with a detailed set of rules. The more rules we write, the more we discover innumerable trifling exceptions.
Trifling exceptions. That is why the First Amendment is simple and short. What tends to be a trifle to one party, may not be to another. Yet if the Founders had tried to detail every trifling exception — if they had tried to come up with a perfectly detailed and fair set of rules, we would have reverted back to monarchy.
Christians promote freedom of religion. Why Christians? Freedom of religion is part of the Christian ethic. Freedom of religion is not about a ruler or government being fair or just. Christians recognize that we have God given rights. Christians understand that God does not force us to adore Him. He has given us the freedom to choose, and Christians respect God’s choice.
The Founders honored God’s choice and wrote First Amendment. When they attempted to honor the spirit of the First Amendment, they sometimes fretted over the trifles and the exceptions the unfairness of life forced upon them.
What does the First Amendment mean in practice? We cannot easily agree and neither could the Founders. Nonetheless, the Founders never intended the First Amendment as some sort of suicide pact for Christianity. No, the First Amendment is not about Christianity peacefully melting away.
Unfortunately, America has become an aristocracy of lawyers. Like everything else in America, we sell Law. When lawyers sell Law, they offer us perfect justice and fairness. Lawyers misrepresent their goods. Perfect justice and fairness does not exist on this side of the grave, but the idea sounds nice.
In practice, perfect justice and fairness benefits lawyers. However, if you want to tie somebody up in litigation, it is a neat trick. How much time and money do you want to spend on litigation? We don’t want to spend any. So lawyers invent the ACLU, and we fund them with taxpayer dollars and the contributions of zealots.
Fortunately, we do not have to depend on the Law. In most cases, we do the right thing because, within the parameters of our culture, it is the right thing to do. Laws have little to do with good behavior. Education is the key. For example, in our society, with our Christian heritage, few proselytize those who are uninterested. What would be the point? Aside from the fact it would be unchristian, nuisances do not convert people. Nuisances harass and just make their targets rightfully angry.
Just the same, we have an aristocracy of lawyers selling perfect justice and fairness.
How should government attend to exceptions? We have elections. We put elected officials in charge. Furthermore, with a system of checks and balances, we restrain our elected officials from overstepping the authority granted to their office. Those checks and balance even include our courts, and before the courts started granting themselves so much authority, we did not have so many infernal rules nobody could understand them.
Direct Replies
1. How the government attends to the religious beliefs military of military personnel is not in the first amendment or the Constitution. Congress and the President, based upon tradition and necessity, just did what needed to be done. So we have chaplains in the military. The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief, and George Washington knew what to do.
2. We both agree that government officials should not use their official position to establish their religion as the state religion. I think government officials have the right to promote their religious beliefs. What government officials do not have the right to do is to use their official position to force their beliefs on others. Does giving a speech force religion on some one? I do not think so.
3. How people take an oath is a recently discovered mystery? George Washington, the first President, used the phrase “so help me god.”
4. Nonchalant about violations of the First Amendment? No. I attribute most recent violations of the First Amendment to the easily offended. Inventing legalisms and abusing the court system to overturn long established traditions and legal precedents is abusive behavior.
5. For kgotthardt. The vast majority believe in God. Most in this nation consider themselves Christians. Being in the majority means something. Christians may exercise certain privileges that they do not necessarily grant odd characters such as pagans. You say that is not fair. How do we determine what is fair? We have elections. Elections have consequences, and with the election of Barack Obama, I am decidedly unhappy. Would you respect me if I whined about the unfairness?
Your “suicide pact” comment is intriguing. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or flounder as they will. As you emphasize, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in large part by their religion, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it’s simply a natural outgrowth of the people’s expression of political will. To the extent that the people’s values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite–the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity’s influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that. AND moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow “lock in” (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
I’m intrigued too by the line you would draw for government officials, rendering them free to use their office to “promote” their religion, but not to “force” it on others. The courts, I presume, would be charged with drawing that line on a case by case basis. How would such an approach work in public schools? There, of course, we’re talking about impressionable children (varying by age) compelled by law to attend classes, so the distinction between promoting and forcing gets even more problematic. Interesting, too, is the thought that each public servant would be free to promote his or her particular religion. Our pluralistic society offers lots of variety in that regard. Unconstrained by today’s understanding of the First Amendment, the zealots among our public servants likely would come to the fore in the ensuing free for all. Indeed, I could imagine some being motivated to government service primarily to promote their religion. Parents, I suppose, would want to choose their child’s first grade teacher based largely on which religion the teacher will promote; how interesting that would be in a small district with few, if any, choices.
Regarding your note to kgotthardt, keep in mind that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees each person the “equal protection” of the laws. While elections mean something, our Constitution assures that majorities cannot deprive minorities or individuals such equal protection. It is for that reason that some local governments find that if they allow one group to use public parks or the like to display religious monuments or exhibits, they are obligated to allow other similarly situated groups to do likewise. In such situations, some choose to allow those others to join in the party and others choose to not to allow any religious exhibits.
Doug Indeap – Because men are imperfect, men imperfectly carry out their responsibilities. We too easily forget that what is critically important, we must see to personally.
We each must take personal responsibility for the education of our children. Nonetheless, over the centuries since the founding of the nation, we have entrusted our children’s education to government. Unfortunately, government is incapable of bringing up children in the Christian faith. Government is incapable of instilling worthwhile values.
Even if we chartered government to instill proper values into children, government could not do so. What drives government is politics, not love. Politicians know their primary customers as special interests, not children and their parents.
Why is it we have so much trouble understanding something so basic? Parents love their children, not a government bureaucracy.
The result has been predicable, just gradual in coming. We have failed to transmit crucial religious and cultural values between generations. So the influence of Christianity has waned and is still waning.
We will pay a price for our foolishness. We are seeing come at us now. We are lead by men and women who behave as spoiled children. There is too little love in them. Without regard for the consequences to others, they grab for power. Listen carefully for the hidden content of their words.
I find your understanding of equal protection under the law somewhat absurd. See the previous paragraph. With such leaders as we now have, people can use deliberate misinterpretations of the Law to win “rights” and power they cannot win via an election.
We can call virtually anything a religion. We can make anything our god. So just because we allow religious decorations in a public park at Christmas time does not mean we cannot disallow the celebrations of Satanists in the same park. Healthy societies have values. Healthy societies have no trouble denying those who oppose the society’s values.
What you have apparently not grasped is that when you “win” you will lose. Truth and a sincerely believed code of honor have an inestimable bearing on good government. Why is freedom of religion is so rare? The reason is hideously simple. It very difficult for men to behave well.
I suggest you investigate what work Thomas Paine wrote in response to the French Reign of Terror (see here). When a society loses respect for God, it must invariably suffer vile times.
If I read you correctly, we do indeed differ on fundamental issues. A common thread through your comments is a perceived need to preserve and promote Christianity as a dominant influence in our society (we all “lose” otherwise), a keen desire to use or bend government to that end, and a willingness, resourcefulness really, to interpret the Constitution in a manner that allows that desire to be fulfilled. Use government to promote religion? Fine, the Constitution “frees” us to do just that, constraining us only to not “force” others to believe as we do. Preclude “others” from similarly using government to promote their religion? Fine, that’s as it should be; majority rules and all. Insist that public officials swear religious oaths? Fine, that’s as it should be too; pay no attention to that pesky Constitutional provision to the contrary. Indeed, to the extent we’ve transgressed in the past and abused government in ways disallowed by the Constitution, let’s enshrine that as “tradition” and righteously claim that tradition ought to get a pass and thus be excepted from Constitutional restrictions.
If one primarily focused on his religion is convinced that it is the be all and end all of it all, and reckons it enjoys the support of a majority, he may approach interpretation of the Constitution as described above and in your comments and endeavor to, in large measure, “desecularize” the government. Interpretation of the Constitution in such a highly motivated, result oriented manner may get you where you want more than where the founders intended.
If one is convinced that the founders thought a secular government neutral in matters of religion is critical to preserving the freedom of all to exercise and express their religious and other beliefs, he may approach interpretation of the Constitution as described in my comments and endeavor to preserve that secular government and keep it separate from religion–as designed. If we “win” such a government, Christianity does not “lose.” It simply operates in the societal marketplace of ideas like all religions. Nor do we necessarily “lose” our values, e.g., honesty, integrity, and honor. Such values do not depend on Christianity. Understanding you to believe otherwise, I recognize your perception of the risk of such a loss may differ.
Doug Indeap – Because of preconceptions, it is common that what we perceive differs from reality.
The Constitution is the invention of imperfect Christians within an imperfect society. So the Constitution reflects the values of a Christian society. Because they were Christians, the Founders understood that that could not claim to speak for God (Read the Book of Job.). The Founders understood they had no business using the government to expound and promote Christianity, and they did not. In fact, as time passed, the State governments, which still retained that option, gave it up.
Nonetheless, the People still put up Christmas displays, Christian religious art, and Christian memorials on public property. Public officials still expressed their religious beliefs, and the Bible remained in public schools. Just because such might offend a few people, most saw no need to give up hundreds of years of religious heritage.
Yes, I believe my God is the be all and the end all. Nonetheless, that does not skew my interpretation of the Constitution. It just means I believe it is all about Him, not me. God is God, and I am not.
When we know how small, insignificant, and dependent we each truly are, we can be more objective. When we understand that it is only God’s love that gives us life, we understand the silliness of being scornfully proud.
I try not to think about what I can get out the Constitution for myself. I merely seek to know the Constitution as it was originally written and implemented. I do not feel compelled to refer to the Constitution as living document. I just object when people do.
Please note again the subject of the post that originated this discussion, a seventy-five year old cross in the dessert. Is that the threat of religious imposition you fear? When you have the religious freedom you say you want — when the threat is such a mere trifle, why do you worry and grow angry?
Again, I don’t much care about the cross that prompted your post and hardly fear it. Whether it stays or goes matters little to me. My concern is that those who do care about the cross may, in their single-minded effort to preserve it, run roughshod over the constitutional principles that I do care about. Crossing that line will provoke my vigorous defense of the Constitution.
I’m struck by a couple paragraphs in your last comment:
“The Constitution is the invention of imperfect Christians within an imperfect society. So the Constitution reflects the values of a Christian society. Because they were Christians, the Founders understood that that could not claim to speak for God (Read the Book of Job.). The Founders understood they had no business using the government to expound and promote Christianity, and they did not. In fact, as time passed, the State governments, which still retained that option, gave it up.
Nonetheless, the People still put up Christmas displays, Christian religious art, and Christian memorials on public property. Public officials still expressed their religious beliefs, and the Bible remained in public schools. Just because such might offend a few people, most saw no need to give up hundreds of years of religious heritage.”
While I would quibble that the founders were a little more diverse in their views than your brief summary allows, by and large I agree with your characterizations of what happened.
Our difference, it seems, may be in how we would have our government and ourselves proceed under the Constitution from such beginnings. My preferred approach is to focus on the Constitutional principles (in this instance, separation of church and state) and endeavor to remain true to them and conform our government and ourselves to those principles as best we can, recognizing the imperfections of the founders and their society and their inability to immediately change old habits and so striving to improve on their efforts when and as we can, and perhaps (in keeping with Madison’s counsel) grudgingly accepting less than that only to the extent societal or political realities compel.
Your preferred approach, it appears to me, is to focus on societal religious practices, or some favored ones at least, and endeavor to remain true to them and conform our constitutional principles, our government, and ourselves to those practices considered custom, heritage, or tradition. Where I reluctantly would recognize that societal and political realities limit our ability to adhere to sound constitutional principles, you would enthusiastically embrace those societal and political realities as honored tradition to be nourished and even expanded, trimming away or interpreting away the constitutional principles accordingly.
Doug Indeap – Jame Madison was just one man amongst many, and you have one just quote from amongst many.
What does the First Amendment say about about freedom of religion? Does it say the people cannot practice religion in public? Does it say the church must separate itself from the state?
What I read in the First Amendment is a prohibition. The Federal Government cannot establish a religion. Why make it more complicated? Where is the problem?
To protect the civil rights of each individual, we have a republic. We have a system of check and balances to prevent anyone or any group from becoming too powerful. Nonetheless, the majority still rules.
From time to time, on one issue or another, we are in the majority. Then we have the probability that our preferences will prevail. From time to time, on one issue or another, we are in the minority. Then, if our peers find our wants too disagreeable, they have the option of negating our desires. What protects us? Our protection is the civil rights accorded the citizen of a republic, and that is all. Such is why limited government has its advantages.
While Madison is but one, he did have perhaps the largest hand in drafting the Constitution and First Amendment–and he had the foresight, motivation, luck or whatever to mouth off about his views perhaps more than most (so we know better what he thought than we do many of the others).
Among the checks and balances is the Constitution’s establishment of individual rights (e.g., freedom of speech and religion) and government limitations (e.g., no establishment of religion) to check the power of the majority. Under the Constitution, a majority of 51% or 99% is barred from abridging those individual rights or using government to establish religion.
While the prohibition against government establishing religion is simple in the sense it can be expressed in few words, the complications arise in applying that simple principle to a thousand and one different situations in the real world. For instance, some argue that it means only that government cannot enact a statute formally proclaiming a particular church to be the official church of the state. By this view, I suppose the government could provide religious training in public schools, subsidize religious activities with tax funds, and do all sorts of things to promote this or that religion as long as it stopped short of tying a bow around an official proclamation of a state church. Recognizing that such a “prohibition” would be a joke, the courts have found it necessary to look at the actual intent and effect of government actions rather than merely to some formality. If an action is intended or has the effect of establishing religion, it falls within the proscription of the amendment. So, for instance, appointing chaplains for Congress or proclaiming days of religious thanksgiving are, according to Madison (there he is again), contrary to the proscription. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and the trick is figuring out just where.
Doug Indeap — Yes, Madison did say quite a bit, and in the one quote you provide, he speaks of trifles.
The courts have become a much bigger deal than the Founders ever intended. On issues of this sort, no one can ever work out a perfect compromise. Yet compromises are what is required, and courts perform poorly on issues such as these.
It is much like using a hammer to kill a fly. Until you start putting holes in the walls and busting the furniture, the fly is a trifle. After that, the trifle becomes a symbol of bad judgment.
With respect to issues like this, the appropriate instrument is a legislative body, which on occasion serves as a worthy flyswatter. At least, when they start poking holes in the walls and busting the furniture, their constituents can vote them out of office.
Most people really don’t like discrimination based upon creed, and judges are just like most people — except we do not elect them.
You like that “trifles” part of Madison’s commentary, I gather (though realize he used the Latin phrase). It is the part, after all, where he suggests a way to let some things slide, even though they are contrary to the Constitution.
You seem to be overlooking his larger points though: 1. Government actions like Congress’s appointment of chaplains for the House and Senate and army and navy and the Executive’s religious proclamations recommending thanksgivings and fasts are NOT CONSISTENT with the Constitution. 2. They should NOT be regarded as legitimate precedent of what the Constitution means or allows. 3. If we somehow fail to end or prevent such actions, RATHER THAN let them have the effect of legitimate precedent, it will be better to confine their ill effects by resort to some handy Latin legalisms–observing that the law does not concern itself with trifles or classing the actions as faults proceeding either from negligence or from the imperfection of our nature. He is not suggesting a way to legitimize these and similar government actions–exactly the opposite. He is suggesting how we can hold our noses and allow these particular unconstitutional actions to persist without according them any legitimacy or precedential effect–so they should have no influence whatever on how we regard future government actions, except perhaps to stand as examples of mistakes to avoid.