Establishment Clause

[Ivellious]

Just wanted to form a general forum for a discussion on the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. If you aren't familiar, it is part of the first Amendment to the Constitution, and it deals with the relationship between the government and religion in general. Here it is, along with the "free exercise clause,"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So, in relation to modern-day politics and religious practice, what are your thoughts? I want to leave it more or less open and let it run wherever it goes, but here are a few possible points:

1. How should this be interpreted today?
2. What, if any, impact should this have on public education? i.e., prayer in schools, religious education in schools, evolution/creationism in schools, other non-Christian religions in schools...
3. How does this relate to/conflict with the idea of America being a "Christian Nation?"

Have fun

[Canuckster1127]

How did those who established it, practice it?

[jlay]

Following a historical grammatical reading would be the best. There was no such thing as public schools when the constitution was written.

IMO, government schools should not teach religion other than from historical perspective. They should not pray, nor should they prohibit anyone's religious freedom to pray. This ammendment was written to protect people from government, not from religion. This secured that the govenrment could not use the church to further political agenda, manipulate, or coerce the citizen. Something out FFs were all too familiar with. Seperation of church as we know it, was not a constitutional issue.

[The Protector]

When it was written, it was not intended to keep religion out of the public sphere, or even out of government. Note how the language here differs from that found in the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Here, the framers spoke of a fundamental right that shall not be infringed, period. Contrast this with the first amendment, which simply says that "Congress shall make no law" with regard to religion. Why frame these protections of fundamental liberties differently? Because several states at the time did indeed have official, established religions. This part of the first amendment was written very purposefully to say that the federal government would not mess with the religious laws of the states, neither by prohibiting them nor by establishing a single, national religion.

At the same time, it's pretty clear from the actions taken by the founding generation (that is, the very legislators who wrote and voted on this amendment) that they didn't intend for it to prohibit religious expression by official government actions. Heck, even the famously deist Thomas Jefferson--he of the "strict wall of separation"-- sent catholic missionaries into the Louisiana territories to preach to the natives there.

[wrain62]

Is secular humanism a religion? It is defined as such in courts for purposes of the the free exercise clause but not for the establishment clause. (Torcaso v. Watkins)

Here is a link on what it is defined as by secular humanists: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph ... ction=main

When you take all the religions under the establishment clause in public schools in the adminstrative and teaching sectors you are essentially left with secualar humanism to take the vacuum of a connecting worldview. That is why I think public schools should be done away with alongside other reasons. Tool of secularization of the country. The first amendment is perfect as it is interpreted today except that with large influence on public institutions I think that it infringes on my free exercise say if I were a teacher and so a my position would be that a serious limit on public intitutions should be in place.

[Bill McEnaney]

I think the clause forbids the U.S. Government to adopt a religion. For example, it seems to prevent the U.S. from being a Catholic country. But maybe any state can adopt one.

[Ivellious]

And if any state adopts a religion officially...then I weep for our country, because it means that "freedom of religion" is dead.

Also, what is the difference between adopting an official, required religion (as prohibited by the constitution) and making laws based solely on religious context, thereby forcing the practice of one religion on everybody? The only difference is that the second tactic is simply trying to sneak around the constitutional ban on forced religion by not saying they are legislating Christianity outright.

Though, oddly enough, some candidates actually don't even veil that strategy anymore (like Michelle Bachman).

[Murray]

And if any state adopts a religion officially...then I weep for our country, because it means that "freedom of religion" is dead.

Wouldn't necessarily say that, in Germany all citizens pay taxes to the catholic church but yet Germany is about 15% atheist. Believe it or not a lot of Christian nations (Georgia is a great example) still have freedom of religion, and are without any persecution of others. Islam is a bit different but I won't get into that.

But I agree that it would violate the constitution to do such a thing, but "freedom of religion" would still exist.

[The Protector]

And if any state adopts a religion officially...then I weep for our country, because it means that "freedom of religion" is dead.

Also, what is the difference between adopting an official, required religion (as prohibited by the constitution) and making laws based solely on religious context, thereby forcing the practice of one religion on everybody? The only difference is that the second tactic is simply trying to sneak around the constitutional ban on forced religion by not saying they are legislating Christianity outright.

Though, oddly enough, some candidates actually don't even veil that strategy anymore (like Michelle Bachman).

Well, the incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment, as understood by the court today, would almost assuredly prohibit the states from adopting official religions now, so I don't think you have to worry about that.

Sa to your other point, it is a common fallacy among atheists and relativists of various stripes. We all have a worldview-- an organizing principle that informs our conscience. You, me, everyone. As citizens of a free republic it is our responsibility to help shape our society, and we rely on these foundational principles to do so. In this way, the religious are no different from you. The constitution does prohibit the establishment of a state religion, but that is not the same as relying on religous understandings of truth, morality, and liberty when proposing and voting for legislation. I actually suspect you really don't object to this, per se; you only object to it when you disagree with the legislation in question. Im guessing you don't care that Chrisitans believe that murder or theft is wrong due to their religion, for example. What you object to, I think, is simply legislation that you don't like.

You see, you may be convinced that what you are arguing for is freedom and equality and all that, but you are actually advocating the opposite. Sure, you think religious people should be able to go do their church thing and sing their songs and whatnot, but when it comes to public life they must check their faith at the door. To you this seems reasonable because you take your worldview to be neutral-- the default position. But there is no "neutral" worldview. And what you are implying is that people of faith, when it comes to public life, must abandon their worldviews and adopt yours-- indeed, that a failure of others to do this is a violation of your religious freedom. So while you are expressing concern about others covertly forcing their worldview on you, you are trying to force your own on others.

[Ivellious]

I'm not saying your basic religious beliefs should be left at the door, but when your only rationale for introducing legislation is that "because my religion says so," I take issue with that because you are forcing everyone to adhere to a religious belief just because you believe in it. Christians don't believe murder is wrong just because of Christianity...Pretty much everybody of all walks of life understands that. That's great, but when Michelle Bachmann says she wants to introduce the Bible to our laws, with no reason except she believes in it, that tramples the right to freedom of religion.

[Canuckster1127]

The issue becomes Ivellious that in many different areas you have overlap of the basis upon which law is based. Even supposed non-religious systems such as utilitarianism, impose societal norms and laws that may conflict with the beliefs and moral codes of others. That's not to state that your appeal to leaving religious beliefs (in the sense of an established state religion) isn't an American ideal. I believe it is. Why however should religious people leave the social norms that come from their beliefs (such as strictures against murder, theft, etc.) and not appeal to them on that basis as desirable social norms and vote accordingly as to what they believe to be moral and ethical? The idea of separation of Church and State from a religious organization separated from the structures of Government is a far cry from the elimination of anything religious from public expression or the foundation of moral and ethical norms.