James Kaufman insists that his belief system is the “antithesis of religion.” Still, the Wisconsin prison inmate decided to file suit in federal court claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated because the warden had refused to allow him to practice his religion – atheism. In an ironic ruling that is a victory for religious liberty yet will likely be viewed as a setback for those who subscribe to this particular “religious belief”, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Kaufman that his rights had been violated since atheism was indeed a “religion”:
[W]hether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. (…) A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), (…) nor must it be a mainstream faith (…).
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by…God in the traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. (…) We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion (…) Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in (…). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but that the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” [snip]
In keeping with this idea, the court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus in (…) it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. (…) Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism” as an example of a religion. (…)
[Note: Sections marked as (…) indicate citations of court cases that have been omitted for brevity.]
Acknowledging that atheism is a religion – and therefore worthy of equal protection – is an surprisingly clearheaded and judicious ruling. Contrary to the claim’s of its adherents, atheism is indeed a religious belief and should be treated as such in the public square. But this it where the issue is complicated by the inane precedents handed down by the Supreme Court.
As the ruling points out, the “touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis” is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. But if, as the courts claim, religious belief can be theistic, nontheistic, atheistic and inspired by religion, philosophical beliefs, and “secular concerns”, then how can we determine what is “neutral?” Where does the neutral ground lie in a dispute between a Muslim, an atheist, a Secular Humanist, or a person who considers themselves “nonreligious?”
"The concept of neutrality can lead to a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious,” said the late Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, “Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it.” By clinging to the myth of neutrality the Court has not only taken a stand against all religion but has circumvented the intention of the very document that they are called on to interpret. The Supreme Court justices may believe that by presenting an appearance of neutrality that they are on the side of angels. But as the American clergyman Edwin Hubbel Chapin once quipped, “Neutral men are the devil's allies.”
(HT: Cross Blogging / Religion Clause)
1
The point about apparent neutrality reminds me of C.S. Lewis in That Hideous Strength:
"Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilites for even apparent neutrality are disappearing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder. Like in the poem about Heaven and Hell eating into merry Middle Earth from opposite sides... 'eat every day... 'till all is somethinged away.' ... separating the wheat from the chaff."
Steve
DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS
2
Government in our democracy, state, and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. ~ Justice Abe Fortas
There is no neutral ground in the universe; every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counter-claimed by Satan. ~ CS Lewis
posted on 08.23.2005 7:23 AM3
So what would a non-neutral court look like? What type of rulings are really 'taking a stand against all religion'?
posted on 08.23.2005 9:00 AM4
Atheism per se is not a religion- read what you quoted.
Atheism as central to questions of ultimate meaning indeed is.
But it begs another question: you guys always say "freedom of, not from religion."
This court says "no freedom of, without from religion" if that religion means atheism.
I have been thinking, by the way, about posting on my blog about how "sola fides" brands of Christianity are not really religious, because they denigrate religious practice.
That would make an interesting discussion: a lot of folks on your side want to make it about "belief," when the rubber meets the road in practice.
posted on 08.23.2005 10:02 AM5
It is clear that Jefferson, who wrote the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom on which the Constitution was based, would never have accepted any ruling that blocked any religious expression (including atheism) unless the civil authorities (and expressly not the courts) need to intervene "when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order"
posted on 08.23.2005 11:32 AM6
"Still, the Wisconsin prison inmate decided to file suit in federal court claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated because the warden had refused to allow him to practice his religion – atheism."
Um, I suppose I could look up the facts of the case, but how exactly did the Warden prevent Mr. Kaufman from NOT believing in a deity?
I'm guessing Mr. Kaufman was either forced to attend some sort of deity-worshipping ceremony, or he was denied permission to practice some spiritual rituals that lacked a deity-worshipping component.
Otherwise, it seems that Mr. Kaufman would not have any standing to bring his case.
So which is it?
posted on 08.23.2005 12:02 PM7
Hi Joe,
I'm still working on the macro-evolution rebuttals you gave me. Very interesting stuff, thanks.
Contrary to the claims of its adherents, atheism is indeed a religious belief and should be treated as such in the public square.
Some atheists consider their worldview to be religious, and others do not. This is not surprising, since atheists believe and don't believe a whole variety of things. There is no atheistic church telling atheists what the catechism is.
I find it is prudent not to make sweeping generalizations about large groups of people, especially when those people are outside the realm of your daily experience (having a half-dozen or so regular atheistic commenters on E.O. is a poor sample for extrapolating out to hundreds of millions of people). Humility, Joe, humility.
posted on 08.23.2005 12:06 PM8
The Supreme Court, by trying to enforce the illusory separation clause, violates the very principle it tries to uphold. If the Court really believed in separation of church and state, it would refuse to hear many cases, and rule that many others brought before it should never have been heard.
The only cases it should hear are those where civil authorities have indeed violated freedom of religious expression, or where church authorities have violated criminal statutes, in other words, when jurisdictional boundaries have been violated from either direction. But the Court should not commit or add to that violation, yet that is what it so often does.
I agree with Larry Lord that there must be more to the story than what we know thus far.
posted on 08.23.2005 12:22 PM9
Extended comment: The Court so often presumes its right to hear whatever it chooses. This presumption extends throughout civil gov't at all levels in the USA, as is evident in the "granting" of tax exempt status to churches, even though the constitutional view should be tax immunity, since it's not in the State's power to grant such rights in the first place.
Reminds me of Russia's first "Conference on Religious Freedom," which I attended in 1993. Boris Yeltsin's representative actually said these words: "President Yeltsin wants everyone to know that in the new Russia all religions will be regulated equally."
posted on 08.23.2005 1:00 PM10
Larry -- I'm guessing Mr. Kaufman was either forced to attend some sort of deity-worshipping ceremony, or he was denied permission to practice some spiritual rituals that lacked a deity-worshipping component.
According to the court document, he wasn't allowed to hold study groups in which to study and discuss his "religion."
Matthew Some atheists consider their worldview to be religious, and others do not.
I'm sure that is true. But it certainly has no bearing on whether their belief fits the standard definitions of "religious belief." I'm sure if you ask Larry that he will tell you that he doesn't have a "worldview." But that doesn't mean that he doesn't in fact have a set of beliefs that function in ways that we mean when we use that term.
Humility, Joe, humility.
I don't think it is an issue of humility. I don't think it is presumptuous of me to assume certain things about people from what they do or say. If someone greets me on the street I don't think it is a lack of humility that causes me to infer that the person is a conscious being. Even if they were to tell me that the were in fact completely unconscious at that very moment, I don’t think it would be an example of having excess pride in thinking that they were simply wrong. (As always, I consider the possibility that I am wrong (they could be a zombie).)
posted on 08.23.2005 1:13 PM11
Joe:
So when a court doesn't pray, doesn't post decalogues, and doesn't acknowledge some particular God, their failure to do so discriminates against exactly whom, exactly how?
Let me spell out the difference between hostility toward religion versus neutrality toward religion. Neutrality dictates that public proceedings should not open with a prayer, for example; hostility toward religion would be prohibiting you from praying. See the difference here? Probably not...
Your whole line of reasoning here is absurd. It would be as if arguing that in refusing to officially recognize the Dallas Cowboys as "Americas Team," the US government is engaging in open hostility toward the Dallas Cowboys (or even hostility to football in general). That's ludicrous.
JCHFleetguy:
Taken in context, I don't think it's "clear" at all. Jefferson's writings on matters religious are quite mixed, and I don't think any side could honestly claim that Jefferson would completely side with them. However, based on his hostility toward Christianity in particular and his propensity to alter his views when it suited him, I'd suggest that Jefferson would oppose religion in the public sqaure as it's currently being presented.
posted on 08.23.2005 1:27 PM12
Oy. Above should read "It would be as if you were arguing..."
posted on 08.23.2005 1:32 PM13
Tgirsch Let me spell out the difference between hostility toward religion versus neutrality toward religion. Neutrality dictates that public proceedings should not open with a prayer, for example; hostility toward religion would be prohibiting you from praying. See the difference here? Probably not...
While that isn’t hostility toward religion, it also isn’t neutrality. If you prohibit certain religious activities, then you favor nonreligion. Likewise, if you allow religious activities, though, you are favoring religion over nonreligion. My point is that the idea that there is some sort of neutral ground is absurd.
14
Thanks for the clarification, Joe.
"According to the court document, he wasn't allowed to hold study groups in which to study and discuss his "religion."
Well, it does seem unfair to allow people who believe in a deity to hold study groups while atheists remain locked up in their cells.
How on earth could the jail possibly defend that position? Even if atheism wasn't determined to be a "religion" by Mr. Kaufman or the court, it seems to violate the First Amendment to grant allegedly religious inmates special privileges.
posted on 08.23.2005 1:55 PM15
While that isn’t hostility toward religion, it also isn’t neutrality. If you prohibit certain religious activities, then you favor non-religion.
Thats not automatic. If you prevent some members of a particular religion from carrying ceremonial knives to school, that not favoring "non-religion". I'm not sure anyways what you mean by "non-religion" in the first place. Usually you seem to treat it as if "non-religion" is instead a competing religion, rather than preferring the absence of one.
------------
'cause I just can't resist:
-Pat Robertson = Ally of the Devil?
posted on 08.23.2005 1:57 PM16
Tgirsch
I am not sure Jefferson would have considered himself hostile to "Christianity"; although I might. His Jefferson Bible gutted all of the miracles, including the resurrection, while retaining the moral teaching. I will see what Tom thinks if I run into him later.
The Virginia Statutes are very clear however. The government should not get in the middle of discussions of "principles". People, including government employees, should be free to express whatever religious, or non-religious, ideas they have. No laws should be created that reward someone for stating, or not stating, such principles - or else we create a situation where people are encouraged to hypocrisy in order to gain favor.
I actually think the neutrality of the Supremes right now is pretty close to Jefferson's view. The greatest statement in the Statutes is this:
truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict themAmen posted on 08.23.2005 2:07 PM
17
Larry Well, it does seem unfair to allow people who believe in a deity to hold study groups while atheists remain locked up in their cells.
Because it doesn’t happen often, I will make a point of saying that I completely agree with you.
How on earth could the jail possibly defend that position? Even if atheism wasn't determined to be a "religion" by Mr. Kaufman or the court, it seems to violate the First Amendment to grant allegedly religious inmates special privileges.
From reading some of the documents it looks like Kaufman is the type of prisoner who tries to sue the prison when his toilet paper is too rough. I suspect that the Kaufman was being rather facetious when he filed the suit and that the prison thought it was another one of his gimmicks.
Fortunately, the court decided the case on the merit of the point rather than on Kaufman’s motives. If other religions are allowed to meet and study then I believe that atheists should be able to do so as well. In fact, thinking seriously about atheism such a “faith” could cause one to lose it so I don’t think it is such a bad thing. ; )
Thats not automatic. If you prevent some members of a particular religion from carrying ceremonial knives to school, that not favoring "non-religion".
True. I’m certainly not saying that the free, public exercise of religion should be an absolute right.
I'm not sure anyways what you mean by "non-religion" in the first place. Usually you seem to treat it as if "non-religion" is instead a competing religion, rather than preferring the absence of one.
I’m not sure that using the court’s definition that there can be “non-religion.” Just using theism and atheism you cover almost all of the ground that could be considered “neutral.”
Pat Robertson = Ally of the Devil?
I'm not sure I would say that they are allies but the Devil certainly doesn't have a lot to fear from Robertson.
posted on 08.23.2005 2:11 PM18
Joe,
If you are a judge, and you have to decide, for the purposes of a case before you, whether or not atheism is a religion, then that's one thing.
If you are talking about people you have never met, and whose beliefs you are not familiar with, and you claim you know they have a religion, even when they say they don't, then that's something else.
There are many, many different kinds of atheists. Maybe some atheists say they don't have a religion because in fact they don't have a religion. Maybe you are confusing their beliefs with the beliefs of some other atheists who do have a religion.
Do you think that is a possibility?
Of course it's hard to answer this question without agreeing upon a definition of religion. What definition are you using?
posted on 08.23.2005 2:17 PM19
Secular fundamentalism is not neutral. Neutrality is a myth. People who who do not want to acknowledge God are NOT neutral. They are 'people who do not want to acknowledge God'
Suppose one group would like to paint the public courthouse black and another group thinks the building should be painted white: What is neutral?
Not black -- that favors people who like black
Not white -- that favors people who like white
Not gray -- that favors people who like gray
Not unpainted -- that favors people who dont like paint
20
Joe:
While that isn’t hostility toward religion, it also isn’t neutrality. If you prohibit certain religious activities, then you favor nonreligion.How so? I mean, if you prohibit them universally, then sure. But if you merely prohibit them within the context of government operation, I don't see how your point follows. We're back to the Dallas Cowboys example. Does the government favor non-football by refusing to give special status to the Cowboys?
What you're arguing, essentially, isn't that neutrality on religion is impossible; you're arguing that neutrality on anything is impossible. You've just made Switzerland disappear in a puff of logic! :)
And in any case, suppose we were to agree, just for the sake of argument, that true neutrality on religion is impossible. Even in this case, refraining from religious exercise in government functions -- "favoring nonreligion," as you put it -- is still far more equitable and preferable then selecting one particular religion over all others and exercising that.
If court proceedings (for example) don't start with the Lord's Prayer, this offends no one. If they do start with it, this potentially offends a sizeable group present, and for what?
In any case, we have a secular republic, and intentionally so. It's entirely appropriate that the government should carry out its oprations in a secular fashion, and by your own admission to do so would not at all be "hostile" toward religion.
JCHFleetguy:
I am not sure Jefferson would have considered himself hostile to "Christianity";I don't know what more you'd need. Look up any of his writings on Christianity and you'll see that they're almost universally critical. Specifically, in a letter to Dr. Woods, he wrote, "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies." And in "Notes on Virginia" he wrote, "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." If that's not hostile, I don't know what is.
The government should not get in the middle of discussions of "principles". People, including government employees, should be free to express whatever religious, or non-religious, ideas they have. No laws should be created that reward someone for stating, or not stating, such principles - or else we create a situation where people are encouraged to hypocrisy in order to gain favor.But this isn't really what we're talking about. This isn't usually about government employees expressing beliefs, but the government as an entity taking religious action and giving preferential religious treatment. I agree that nothing should prohibit a government employee from expressing religious beliefs as s/he sees fit, except when acting in their official capacity. Perhaps the Virginia Statutes explicitly allowed this; I don't know. But then, those statutes don't govern us, so I don't think that's terribly relevant.
Further, it's misleading to imply that Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statutes in a vacuum, absent outside input. As such, the document is not a good indicator of Jefferson's views so much as the view prevalent among the people in power in Virginia at the time.
posted on 08.23.2005 2:33 PM21
Matthew,
I just flipped over to Encarta and got:
1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life [All atheists have this don't they?]I think EVERY atheist would fit the 1st definition at least - and most likely the rest as well. posted on 08.23.2005 2:45 PM
2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine;
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by;
4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by;
Exam: The danger is that you start to make fitness a religion.
22
Tgirsch,
I am not sure where the personal opinion vs public action dividing line comes in: President Bush was immensely criticized for stating that he looked to God for guidance as President (as well as a number of other Presidents). Where is that in your line?
The Virginia Statutes are almost universally considered to be the basis of the much shorter Establishment Clause in the US Constitution. Since the Separation Doctrine has never been spelled out in a newer Amendment - this is still seen as one of the best explanations of where Madison (who got this passed in Virginia) got his thinking on the Constitution.
"Jefferson directed that on his tombstone he should not be remembered as president of the United States or for any of the other high offices he held, but as the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and as the founder of the University of Virginia."I think we can say it reflected his opinion.
Organized religion, and especially the state Religions of the Middle Ages, constantly violated what Jefferson said here:
"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time"I too believe:
1) Almighty God has created the mind free;Am I anti-Christian? Not even a little. posted on 08.23.2005 3:13 PM
2) that all attempts to influence it by earthly punishments or burdens:
a) tend only to cause habits of hypocrisy and malice,3) that legislators and rulers (civil as well as clerical), in sinful presumption (being themselves but fallible and uninspired men):
b) are a departure from the plan of the God, who chose not to spread His plan by coercions on mind or body, as it was in his Almighty power to do;a) have assumed power over the faith of others,
b) set up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, [a and b are addressed by Joe's "Wife Abuse" post]
c) have established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
23
The Supreme Court, by trying to enforce the illusory separation clause, violates the very principle it tries to uphold. If the Court really believed in separation of church and state, it would refuse to hear many cases, and rule that many others brought before it should never have been heard.
The only cases it should hear are those where civil authorities have indeed violated freedom of religious expression, or where church authorities have violated criminal statutes, in other words, when jurisdictional boundaries have been violated from either direction. But the Court should not commit or add to that violation, yet that is what it so often does.
A few years ago I recall a case where a Rabbi was accused of molesting a girl onboard an airplane. He was arrested and charged with sexual assult. We are also familiar with the priests that have been convicted of sexually attacking children and are now serving jail sentences. So clearly the courts are willing to hear criminal cases involving people that happen to be members of a church.
I'd be curious to hear an example of a case you think the court should have refused to hear? Most of the Church-State cases we hear about involve civil authorities such as local public schools, prison wardens, police officers, local governments and so on.
Extended comment: The Court so often presumes its right to hear whatever it chooses. This presumption extends throughout civil gov't at all levels in the USA, as is evident in the "granting" of tax exempt status to churches, even though the constitutional view should be tax immunity, since it's not in the State's power to grant such rights in the first place.
This is a rather bizaar comment. Jurisdiction is a big subject in legal circles and more than a few lawyers win cases by arguing the court has no jurisdiction. For example, the recent case legalizing gay marriage in Mass. never went to the Supreme Court because it involved only the State Court reading the State Constitution. The SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to hear the case hence it refused to.
I have no idea what you are talking about regarding tax immunity. Does the state have the right to tax? If it doesn't then who does? If it does then doesn't it follow that the state has the right to not use its power to tax? If so then what is 'tax immunity'?
Joe:
According to the court document, he wasn't allowed to hold study groups in which to study and discuss his "religion."
This is rather bizaar. How is it somehow logically impossible for the court to hold a neutral stance on religion in this case? The seperation school of thought would probably say that if the prison permits prisoners to form study groups they have to allow them to do so without regard to the religious content of the groups. So the athiest study group cannot be shown any less privilages than the Christian one. However differences in treatment are ok if they are not based on the religion (or lack of one) being studied....so they can give the Christian group a bigger meeting room if they have more members than the athiest one but not because they want to support the Christianity over other faiths.
While that isn’t hostility toward religion, it also isn’t neutrality. If you prohibit certain religious activities, then you favor nonreligion. Likewise, if you allow religious activities, though, you are favoring religion over nonreligion. My point is that the idea that there is some sort of neutral ground is absurd.
So it isn't support of religion, it isn't hostility towards religion but it also isn't neutrality? Then what is it? Between support, neutrality and hostility haven't we covered the whole spectrum???
Larry:
How on earth could the jail possibly defend that position? Even if atheism wasn't determined to be a "religion" by Mr. Kaufman or the court, it seems to violate the First Amendment to grant allegedly religious inmates special privileges.
Of course lines have to be drawn somewhere at some point. Would a Star Trek fans study group be a religion? How about a group supporting nationalized health insurance? I suppose a lot can and has been written about where to draw the line but it doesn't seem to be the point Joe was making. Drawing lines can be difficult but judges are usually paid good money to do it.
bevets
Secular fundamentalism is not neutral. Neutrality is a myth. People who who do not want to acknowledge God are NOT neutral. They are 'people who do not want to acknowledge God'
Sure if you alter the definitions you can define away neutrality. However not being overtly supportive of religion is not the same thing as being hostile to religion. If you're not being hostile to religion but also not being supportive of it you are being neutral.
24
Tgirsch,
I am not sure where the personal opinion vs public action dividing line comes in: President Bush was immensely criticized for stating that he looked to God for guidance as President (as well as a number of other Presidents). Where is that in your line?
The Virginia Statutes are almost universally considered to be the basis of the much shorter Establishment Clause in the US Constitution. Since the Separation Doctrine has never been spelled out in a newer Amendment - this is still seen as one of the best explanations of where Madison (who got this passed in Virginia) got his thinking on the Constitution.
"Jefferson directed that on his tombstone he should not be remembered as president of the United States or for any of the other high offices he held, but as the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and as the founder of the University of Virginia."I think we can say it reflected his opinion.
Organized religion, and especially the state Religions of the Middle Ages, constantly violated what Jefferson said here:
"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time"I too believe:
1) Almighty God has created the mind free;Am I anti-Christian? Not even a little.
2) that all attempts to influence it by earthly punishments or burdens:
a) tend only to cause habits of hypocrisy and malice,3) that legislators and rulers (civil as well as clerical), in sinful presumption (being themselves but fallible and uninspired men):
b) are a departure from the plan of the God, who chose not to spread His plan by coercions on mind or body, as it was in his Almighty power to do;a) have assumed power over the faith of others,
b) set up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, [a and b are addressed by Joe's "Wife Abuse" post]
c) have established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
posted on 08.23.2005 3:17 PM
25
Boonie DaBoonie Boontoon:
"Of course lines have to be drawn somewhere at some point. Would a Star Trek fans study group be a religion? How about a group supporting nationalized health insurance? I suppose a lot can and has been written about where to draw the line but it doesn't seem to be the point Joe was making. Drawing lines can be difficult but judges are usually paid good money to do it."
Well, yes. My question was more straightforward and was simply: how did the jail justify its preferential treatment of religion?
If I were the attorney representing the jail, I could come up some rational arguments that would be compelling to most folks, although the factual basis for those arguments could be called into dispute. But I might not have to worry about those facts if a legal precedent for granting religious expression a special status among forms of speech had already been, um, established ...
...mumble mumble ... tax-free ... mumble ...
posted on 08.23.2005 3:23 PM26
Boonton:
In order: (1) Of course the Court has the right to hear any case where a citizen molests a child, whether that citizen is a rabbi or a robber. My point was that the Court has no right to interfere in church life any more than the church has a right to supplant civil government. That is true, administrative separation. But the State, by insinuating itself into situations such as Christians worshiping on public property, violates the very separation it claims to uphold. As for your point, obviously the State has every right to prosecute criminal matters even when churches or church officers commit them, because that is within the State's proper jurisdiction.
(2) I attacked the notion of tax exempt status, in that whatever right the State grants it can also take away. Thus, by "granting" such status, it still makes a statement of sovereignty over the church. If we were true to the notion of the state and church truly not interfering with each other, then the church would be considered immune from taxation. As it is, exemption is merely permission from a civil body that considers itself ultimately sovereign.
Look at it this way: If I were to tell you I'm going to allow you to keep commenting on Joe's site, you'd laugh me off the net. Why? Because I don't have the authority either to let you write or to stop you from writing. Likewise, the State goes beyond its proper limits by telling a church it is granting or revoking an exemption, because it has no jurisdiction in that regard anyway.
posted on 08.23.2005 3:43 PM27
1. "My point is that the idea that there is some sort of neutral ground is absurd."
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but could you please explain how "non-neutrality" is part of the constitution? ("By clinging to the myth of neutrality the Court has not only taken a stand against all religion but has circumvented the intention of the very document that they are called on to interpret.") Was the intention of the Framer's to organize a Christian country, such as Iran has an Islamic country?
2. And, the best questions posed to you in this threat, you ignore.
My 1L contacts professor told our class something that I continue to be reminded of when I read this web page. He said, people who use 35 cent words are people that have little to say substantively so they work very hard to impress with their vocabulary.
You can use all the 35 cent words you want, but it is still obvious you are avoiding Bontoon's questions.
"So what would a non-neutral court look like? What type of rulings are really 'taking a stand against all religion'?"
28
JCHFleetGuy:
Wow, your comment was so nice, you posted it twice! :)
I don't think you're at all anti-Christian, but then I don't generally see writings of yours where you speak ill not just of particular Christian sects but of Christianity in general. Jefferson did exactly this, which is why I submit he was anti-Christian in most meaningful senses.
I think we're drifting a bit off-topic here, as what Jefferson would have wanted isn't terribly relevant anyway.
This, however, is a fair question:
President Bush was immensely criticized for stating that he looked to God for guidance as President (as well as a number of other Presidents). Where is that in your line?This is admittedly a tough nut. Closing a speech with "God Bless America" may draw my ire, but I don't think it ought to be verboten. Saying "I'm signing this into law because Christian values demand that we do so" (or just doing so, without saying as much, and without compelling secular reasons) certainly crosses a line. In between those, it's fuzzier.
Rule of thumb: as a public figure, thanking God is okay, asking everyone to join you in so doing is not.
Boonton:
So it isn't support of religion, it isn't hostility towards religion but it also isn't neutrality?I'm betting Joe will argue that it is support of religion, namely the "religion" of atheism.
While we're on that topic, I see that people are playing the semantic games over whether atheism is/is not a religion again. There are certainly definitions of religion under which atheism can fall, but these typically aren't the definitions people think of when they say "religion." See this definition, wherein most people who think "religion" immediately think of something like Definition 1, where atheism most certainly does not fit. Def 4 is the only one that fits, and it could just as easily be used to describe communism, capitalism, and American football. Not the definition most think of when they think of "religion," certainly not in this context.
posted on 08.23.2005 3:52 PM29
Neutrality is a myth. People who who do not want to acknowledge God are NOT neutral. They are 'people who do not want to acknowledge God'
Boonton
Sure if you alter the definitions you can define away neutrality. However not being overtly supportive of religion is not the same thing as being hostile to religion. If you're not being hostile to religion but also not being supportive of it you are being neutral.
Suppose you are in a room that contains 30 people and it is Super Bowl Sunday. 20 people want to watch the game, 6 people want to watch a movie, and 4 people want to leave the tv off.
Define Neutrality.
30
g You can use all the 35 cent words you want, but it is still obvious you are avoiding Bontoon's questions.
Unfortunately, I don't have the opportunity to answer every comment that is posted. But just so no one gets the impression that I'm avoiding anything I'll answer the question:
"So what would a non-neutral court look like?
I don't know. That's like asking me to describe an imaginary creature that couldn't possibly exist . There is no such thing as a non-neutral court, especially when it comes to religion (at least not the way the court has defined "religion"). I'm not saying that the court should be neutral but that the court should avoid most of the issues altogether.
On issues where neutrality is impossible (and there is no clear violation of the Establishment Clause), the people, through their legislators, should have to decide.
What type of rulings are really 'taking a stand against all religion'?"
I don't know. Most of the decisions seem to either implicitly favor some form of theism or atheism. There are few that stand against both of these -- and all other forms of religion -- at the same time.
posted on 08.23.2005 4:02 PM31
bevets:
Suppose you are in a room that contains 30 people and it is Super Bowl Sunday. 20 people want to watch the game, 6 people want to watch a movie, and 4 people want to leave the tv off.Excellent analogy, made even better if you point out that the 30 people in the room aren't there to watch TV, but to do a job. Neutrality then stipulates that the TV stays off while people get their job done; they can go and watch football (or a movie, or do neither) on their own time.
Joe:
The Dallas Cowboys analogy seems like a good one, yet you continue to ignore it. If you can't answer it, at least explain why you don't think it's a good analogy.
posted on 08.23.2005 4:18 PM32
Tgirsch The Dallas Cowboys analogy seems like a good one, yet you continue to ignore it. If you can't answer it, at least explain why you don't think it's a good analogy.
I can't really say if the analogy is good or bad because I don't really understand it.
Let me provide an alternate one: Suppose that certain religions are like gasses (Chrisitianiy is Oxygen, Islam is Nitrogen, etc) and that atheism is the absence of a gas. Now let's suppose we combine them in a room called The State. What mixture would prove to be "neutral?" You can't suck out all the gas because then you are left with only atheism. But if you add the gasses, they might be able to coexist but they will remove the "atheism." The problem is that there is no position where both the gasses and the absence of gas can coexist in a state of "neutrality."
posted on 08.23.2005 4:28 PM33
Tgirsch,
I do not think this is at all off point; and Jefferson's view is the underlying view of the Constitution (that is why the Supreme's changes in philosophy tend to revolve around it). Jefferson's (as well as the other Founders) viewpoints on European state churches is indeed the whole point.
Again, I may get a chance to ask Tom what he meant. I agree with both statements you quoted (at least on a political level):
* My superstitions and other superstititions may indeed be "equal" - its all faith, and little of it will ever be proved. Notice he did say "our" (and not "your") in there BTW.
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites"I agree: Christianity hasn't advanced one inch toward uniformity through coercion. I disagree with the "from the introduction" because this didn't really start for another 500 years or so; but his general point is valid - especially about Middle Ages Europe. If you attempt to coerce uniformity you will be a fool or a hypocrite.
Now, was he looking for a Christianity free from the corruption of human interference; or no Christianity at all? Considering he didn't write the Jefferson Qu'ran or the Jefferson [insert Buddhist scripture], the first may be argued. His attempt to gut Christianity of its main rational (the resurrection) speaks for the second.
posted on 08.23.2005 4:38 PM34
JCHFleetGuy,
If you met someone and asked him what his religion was, and he said he didn't have one, then you might ask him if he believed in God.
Let's say he says, "What do you mean?", and you gave him some definition of God, and he said, "Well, I can't say that I do believe that, but I don't bother myself about things like that. I just don't think about those kinds of questions at all." Would this person have any religion? Would you describe him as "non-religious"? Would you say he is an atheist?
posted on 08.23.2005 4:44 PM35
I can't really say if the analogy is good or bad because I don't really understand it.I don't know what's not to understand. Is it possible for the state to be neutral on American football, or isn't it? If not, why not? If so, then why isn't it similarly possible to be neutral on religion?
Your gas example, I submit, isn't a very good one, because nobody is talking about banning beliefs (gases) from a room. And you're also trying to have it both ways here, simultaneously claiming that atheism is a religion (i.e., a gas like any other), but then calling it the absence of gas in your example. ;)
Suppose, on the other hand, the gases represent the believers of various religions, with certain "inert gases" (e.g., Argon) believing in none. All these gases must be granted equal access to and equal treatment within the room; this means no preferential treatment for any particular gas. In other words, the mixture isn't required to be balanced or neutral, but the treatment each receives is equal.
Otherwise, all you're doing is setting up a false dilemma, wherein a failure to show a preference toward your particular gas (religion) constitutes hostility toward or bias against your gas.
Let's put it another way, and answer honestly: which is less offensive to you: being asked to sit quietly through appeals to a God in which you do not believe, or simply not having to listen to any such appeals (whether you agree or disagree). You seem to claim that failure to acknowledge God is the same thing as actively rejecting God, and that clearly isn't the case.
posted on 08.23.2005 4:48 PM36
Neutrality is a myth. People who who do not want to acknowledge God are NOT neutral. They are 'people who do not want to acknowledge God'
Suppose you are in a room that contains 30 people and it is Super Bowl Sunday. 20 people want to watch the game, 6 people want to watch a movie, and 4 people want to leave the tv off.
Define Neutrality.
tgirsch
Excellent analogy, made even better if you point out that the 30 people in the room aren't there to watch TV, but to do a job. Neutrality then stipulates that the TV stays off while people get their job done; they can go and watch football (or a movie, or do neither) on their own time.
You may not hijack the analogy. There is no stipulation about what the people are 'supposed to be doing' The whole point of the analogy is for them to decide what they will do. Once again: Define Neutrality for this situation.
37
"Let me provide an alternate one: Suppose that certain religions are like gasses (Chrisitianiy is Oxygen, Islam is Nitrogen, etc) and that atheism is the absence of a gas."
Sally took care of that, didn't she?
posted on 08.23.2005 5:11 PM38
JCHFleetguy:
I do not think this is at all off point; and Jefferson's view is the underlying view of the ConstitutionI think you give Jefferson too much credit (a flaw which usually manifests itself in atheists, not theists). The Constitution was anything but a one-man-show. And it could be argued that the far more important figure in defining and defending religious liberty was Madison, not Jefferson.
Notice he did say "our" (and not "your") in there BTW.Notice, too, that he called it a "superstition." :) In context, however, I think he was using "ours" to refer to "mankind's," not "yours and mine."
Considering that the same guy also wrote "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" in his autobiographical "Toward the mystery," I'm guessing it's a safe bet he wasn't fond of Christianity. :)
Now, was he looking for a Christianity free from the corruption of human interference; or no Christianity at all?The correct answer is probably "neither," although that could certainly be viewed as a copout. I'd argue that he was much more interested in the latter. Basically, he liked the secular teachings of Christ, and little else about Christianity. Consider, too, that Christianity was the dominant religion of his time (as it is today), so it makes sense that he would couch his arguments in terms that Christians could relate to.
But again, unless we think that the Constitution is solely (or primarily) the Thomas Jefferson Show, we're off-topic here. :)
posted on 08.23.2005 5:11 PM39
Tgirsch,
Your gas example, I submit, isn't a very good one, because nobody is talking about banning beliefs (gases) from a room.
Well, yes, actually you are. You are implying that religion is something private that is best left in the mind. But not all religions agree to that (certainly not Christianity). So anytime you claim that religion should be kept out of the public square you are advocating for a functional atheism.
And you're also trying to have it both ways here, simultaneously claiming that atheism is a religion (i.e., a gas like any other), but then calling it the absence of gas in your example. ;)
Hey, I was just trying to be fair to your belief system. But if you think that atheism is a “gas” that can fit in with the others then I’ll take your word for it. Personally, I don’t see how you can take a neutral position on an issue that invokes the law of non-contradiction ( a is not not-a; atheism is not theism).
In other words, the mixture isn't required to be balanced or neutral, but the treatment each receives is equal.
But how would this work out in the real world? Take, for example, the issue of public prayer. Suppose we have a group that includes Christians, Muslims, Jews, and atheists. The three theistic religions want to hold a public prayer and divide the time among themselves to do so. If they offer the atheist “equal time” is the government being “neutral?”
Let's put it another way, and answer honestly: which is less offensive to you: being asked to sit quietly through appeals to a God in which you do not believe, or simply not having to listen to any such appeals (whether you agree or disagree).
I don’t want to avoid your question but I have to point out that what I might or might not find offensive has nothing to do with what is Constitutional. I may not like having to sit through an appeal to a foreign deity or a rant against my Creator. But I don’t think either should necessarily be regulated by the Supreme Court.
You seem to claim that failure to acknowledge God is the same thing as actively rejecting God, and that clearly isn't the case.
So are you willing to accept the opposite, that acknowledge God is not the same thing as actively accepting God?
40
bevets:
You may not hijack the analogy.The point wasn't to "hijack" the analogy, so much as to point out that it was a lousy one. Where they are and why they are there is integral to the question at hand.
Otherwise, going by the conclusion you're apparently trying to lead me to, the majority in the room get to decide. Except that the "room" is America, and the largest group are the Catholics. Shall we establish Catholicism, then?
In any case, to answer your analogy as given, I'd submit that they should watch no TV, as this is the least offensive option (even if the least represented one). Watching no TV is far less of an imposition than watching something you don't want to watch (or worse, are ideologically opposed to).
posted on 08.23.2005 5:17 PM41
My point was that the Court has no right to interfere in church life any more than the church has a right to supplant civil government. That is true, administrative separation. But the State, by insinuating itself into situations such as Christians worshiping on public property, violates the very separation it claims to uphold.
Again I'm not really sure what you mean by this. 'Public property', by definition is not owned by private citizens but rather all citizens and managed by the gov't. The seperationist school seems to have done a good job at giving people fair and reasonable access to public property like parks, libraries, etc. What are you talking about specifically?
(2) I attacked the notion of tax exempt status, in that whatever right the State grants it can also take away. Thus, by "granting" such status, it still makes a statement of sovereignty over the church. If we were true to the notion of the state and church truly not interfering with each other, then the church would be considered immune from taxation. As it is, exemption is merely permission from a civil body that considers itself ultimately sovereign.
So Churches would be tax exempt under you plan, as they are now? OK.... In theory there's no constitutional requirement that Churches have tax immunity. The state grants tax exemption to non-profit organizations. A non-religious organization can achieve that status as well as its religious counterparts so again I don't see the problem.
Likewise, the State goes beyond its proper limits by telling a church it is granting or revoking an exemption, because it has no jurisdiction in that regard anyway.
Of course the problem is what is a Church? It's quite easy for someone to try to reclassify themselves or their organizations as a Church if you give it blanket immunity.
Suppose you are in a room that contains 30 people and it is Super Bowl Sunday. 20 people want to watch the game, 6 people want to watch a movie, and 4 people want to leave the tv off.
Define Neutrality.
Refusing to vote for either option. You are in a club where 30 people want to expell non-Muslims, 20 people want to expell non-Christians and 10 people want to expell non-Jews. You vote to not expell anyone. Are you neutral between Christians, Muslims and Jews? Keep in mind I didn't ask if you were neutral between tolerance and intolerance...
Let me provide an alternate one: Suppose that certain religions are like gasses (Chrisitianiy is Oxygen, Islam is Nitrogen, etc) and that atheism is the absence of a gas. Now let's suppose we combine them in a room called The State. What mixture would prove to be "neutral?" You can't suck out all the gas because then you are left with only atheism. But if you add the gasses, they might be able to coexist but they will remove the "atheism." The problem is that there is no position where both the gasses and the absence of gas can coexist in a state of "neutrality."
An odd analogy, the government doesn't decide how many people of each type of religion will be in a room yet your analogy has it deciding how much of each type of gas will be in the room. Suppose the analogy is modified a bit. You have a party where people bring their own soda. They can bring coke, pepsi or no soda at all (athiesm). Are you telling me it is impossible to be a neutral host in this situation?
posted on 08.23.2005 5:19 PM42
tgirsch: In any case, to answer your analogy as given, I'd submit that they should watch no TV, as this is the least offensive option (even if the least represented one). Watching no TV is far less of an imposition than watching something you don't want to watch (or worse, are ideologically opposed to).
The point I think that Joe and bevets are making though is that that decision is not neutral. Let's take a nativity scene on public property during Christmas. If you say, remove it because it is religious in nature, then in a sense, you are saying that atheism, as a religion, gets preferential treatment. Nothing that will offend atheists or non-Christians is allowed. Hence, the decision is not neutral.
posted on 08.23.2005 5:29 PM43
Tgirsch,
No, the constitution isn't the Thomas Jefferson show - the Establishment Clause is. Remember, Madison helped get this passed in Virginia; and it was the basis of what he did at the Constitutional Convention.
I am a pretty strict constructionist - but even the "living" Constitution folk understand that those who wrote the Establishment Clause were talking "Freedom of" (Jefferson and Virginia) and not "Freedom from".
We may decide to change that; but we cannot ignore the roots. In Jefferson (and Madison's) mind truth came from all ideas and principles being free to contend in the public arena. Of course Jefferson would agree with the Supreme's on the atheist in jail issue (as would I). He would also, I believe, understand that the contention between "there is a God" and "there isn't a God" should also freely exist in the public arena. He would simply reject any belief or principle being required for public service or public reward - including "there is a God" or "there isn't a God"
Whether Jefferson would define atheism as a religion is another, and probably semantical, issue.
posted on 08.23.2005 5:32 PM44
Joe:
You are implying that religion is something private that is best left in the mind.Really, how so? If I were prohibiting you from gathering as a group and worshipping, I'd see your point. If I were prohibiting you from engaging in evangelism on the streets, or in your neighborhoods, or at your supermarket, I'd see your point. I'm advocating no such thing. I'm simply saying that if you want to keep the peace and if you care about fair treatment, there are certain places where religion simply doesn't belong. Government is such a place, as pretty much the entire history of Europe and the Middle East will attest.
Further, I frequently argue that it is precisely because of the government's neutrality on religion that America is one of the most devout nations in the Western world.
Hey, I was just trying to be fair to your belief system. But if you think that atheism is a “gas” that can fit in with the others then I’ll take your word for it.I'm just asking you to pick an argument and stick with it.
Take, for example, the issue of public prayer. Suppose we have a group that includes Christians, Muslims, Jews, and atheists. The three theistic religions want to hold a public prayer and divide the time among themselves to do so. If they offer the atheist “equal time” is the government being “neutral?”Frankly, it's not a terribly real-world example, although it points out the impracticality of the matter. By the time everyone gets done saying their respective prayers, there's no time left for official business. But this is almost never the case, where anyone who wants to can offer a prayer consistent with their particular creed; instead, there's usually one prayer given, and it often doesn't even attempt to be inclusive. What's the harm, then, of not opening with a prayer at all?
The big thing that bugs me about this is this Christian insistence on being able to not just practice their religion, but to flaunt it at every possible opportunity. There exists no event, no forum, that cannot and should not be turned into a prayer rally, it seems. I know a guy who says we shouldn't be doing that sort of thing anyway.
I don’t want to avoid your question but I have to point out that what I might or might not find offensive has nothing to do with what is Constitutional."Little" is probably more accurate than "nothing." In any case, I don't see anything inherently flawed in the argument that activities which have the effect of promoting a religion are in effect establishing that religion as being preferred, and that as such those activities should be prohibited.
So are you willing to accept the opposite, that acknowledge God is not the same thing as actively accepting God?Only in the most legalistic sense. But that's not really what we're talking about here. The opposite of sending a message that Religion X is preferred is sending a message that Religion X is frowned upon. But what I'm proposing, simply abstaining from sending a message at all, does neither of these things.
Now we could try to weasel out of it and be "inclusive" by (for example) adjusting our motto to say "In God[s]/Goddess[es]/Allah/Unspecified Deity/ies We Trust, Or Maybe Not," or you could simply revert to the original "E Pluribus Unum" ("From Many, One") and not have to worry about listing everybody's God to avoid offense.
posted on 08.23.2005 5:34 PM45
Chris,
But the Supreme Court said (about a town in Ohio I think) that they had to take down one Christmas tree that had a reference to Christ as Lord; but could leave up another one set up in proximity to a Star of David - with a sign saying something like "we honor diversity". One showed neutrality by having the two opposing religious symbols together while the other made a purely Christian religious statement.
Neutrality as defined by the Supreme's very recently.
posted on 08.23.2005 5:37 PM46
Chris Lutz:
Let's take a nativity scene on public property during Christmas. If you say, remove it because it is religious in nature, then in a sense, you are saying that atheism, as a religion, gets preferential treatment.Baloney. Putting up a "There Is No God" display is giving atheism preferential treatment. Of course, by your standard, the federal government is giving non-Cowboys fans preferential treatment, too; I suppose we should end that injustice as well!
JCHFleetGuy:
No, the constitution isn't the Thomas Jefferson show - the Establishment Clause is.Even that isn't really true. Jefferson didn't unilaterally do anything, and had to get wide agreement. So Jefferson's views are at best of limited relevance.
I am a pretty strict constructionist - but even the "living" Constitution folk understand that those who wrote the Establishment Clause were talking "Freedom of" (Jefferson and Virginia) and not "Freedom from".Huh? Never mind that you can't have one without the other, I doubt even Madison would agree with that assessment.
He would also, I believe, understand that the contention between "there is a God" and "there isn't a God" should also freely exist in the public arena.Who's arguing that either of these ideas shouldn't freely exist? That's not at issue here. What's at issue is whether we should give any of these ideas preferential treatment, and whether the government simply abstaining from religious expressions of any kind actually gives some sort of "preferential treatment" to atheists.
Does the absence of a decalogue in a courtroom send you, a Christian, the message that you will be treated less fairly than an atheist? No, it does not. Does the presence of a decalogue send a message to those who don't believe in / adhere to the Ten Commandments? Yes, it does. (Don't believe me? Just ask the people who want to put it there!) So on which side should one err?
posted on 08.23.2005 5:44 PM47
Tgirsch
Frankly, it's not a terribly real-world example, although it points out the impracticality of the matterActually, it may be one of the most important examples. Generally, separtion issues now come down to use of public facilities for private religious purposes. Can a community room paid for by government funds be used for a private Bible study; or prayer time? Can government employees meet at lunch in a government conference room to pray?
The Supremes now tend to say yes; as long as any group may use the room: Buddhist, sewing circle, atheist, etc. If you ban someone on religious grounds - you pretty much have to at least ban all religions (and now an atheist meeting would seem to fall into the mix).
posted on 08.23.2005 5:51 PM48
Tgirsch,
Does the absence of a decalogue in a courtroom send you, a Christian, the message that you will be treated less fairly than an atheist? No, it does not. Does the presence of a decalogue send a message to those who don't believe in / adhere to the Ten Commandments? Yes, it does. (Don't believe me? Just ask the people who want to put it there!) So on which side should one err?Again though, the Supreme's outlawed one display they considered to advocate the religion(s) connected to the Ten Commandants; and allowed one they thought stressed its historical basis for laws of our country.
Never mind that you can't have one without the other, I doubt even Madison would agree with that assessmentOf course you can. The Christmas tree/Star of David display the Supreme Court allowed is one.
What if Anytown, USA set up a display area in its City Hall called "The Great Philosophies of Our Great City" and allowed all comers to post tasteful displays? A hallway display in a school called "The Beliefs of our Students"? If the atheists couldn't create a display "tasteful" enough - the Courts get involved; but assuming there are display standards everyone can meet - then you have "freedom of" with "freedom from". The Supreme's in their current state would not ban these religious displays.
This is neutrality as currently practiced.
posted on 08.23.2005 6:04 PM49
Joe Carter
"You are implying that religion is something private that is best left in the mind. But not all religions agree to that (certainly not Christianity)."
This is the crux of the biscuit, isn't it?
And the answer is that in the United States we have a system of government where the beliefs of particular religions are not accorded the same weight as facts.
Are religious beliefs "best kept private"? Joe says that Christians disagree.
And certainly some Christians agree with Joe. That is why we see folks like Dobson getting all nutty when they are kept from spreading anti-gay propaganda in high schools. Dobson and his clan will argue that their religion REQUIRES them to speak out against sin when they see it.
Unfortunately, as I pointed out above, the facts about the dangers of discriminating against people and shaming people will ultimately trump these strange claims of "religious imperative."
If you seriously believe that you are the victim of religious discrimination whenever your religious beliefs are ignored, you are free to resolve that dilemna in the following truly American way: start a commune.
posted on 08.23.2005 6:06 PM50
oops: then you have "freedom of" *without* "freedom from".
posted on 08.23.2005 6:06 PM51
"The Supremes now tend to say yes; as long as any group may use the room: Buddhist, sewing circle, atheist, etc."
How about Satan worshippers?
Can you ban Satan worshippers?
Atheism is boring. Satan worshipping is far more interesting.
And here is why: once the Satan worshippers get involved, someone will ask the question, "Why can't these guys just worship Satan in their own home? Why do they have to use a public school classroom after hours? What if our kids are exposed to the Satan worshippers?"
And it's a great question. It's an especially great question for the Christians who tend to always be in the majority in nearly every community in the United States and have no shortage of clean well-lit places to study their Bibles etc.
posted on 08.23.2005 6:11 PM52
Yes Larry, you may worship Satan (or they would have to close the room to all religions). Of course, they could stop you from sacrificing virgins, or advocating the sacrifice of virgins.
I know that ruins it for you right there.
posted on 08.23.2005 6:14 PM53
I, as an atheist, welcome the idea of classifying atheism as a religion, at least for legal purposes. It would benefit atheists more than it would harm them. For instance, at least one recent Supreme Court ruling would be changed; Ten Commandments would be out, God would leave the Pledge, and so on. And I don't think there'd be many negatives for atheists. Evolution would still be taught, as would all other science, because it's not inherently atheistic, it's merely "secular" (i.e., it can be adopted by any religion, from atheism to Zoroastrianism).
Of course, calling atheism a religion in a broader sense is problematic. It doesn't fit the definition. For example, take the Merriam-Webster definition:
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Atheism doesn't fit in any of those. And if we start to call any world-view that is adhered to passionately a religion, then the 1st amendment is going to prohibit the government from endorsing any political world-view! That would be absurd.
posted on 08.23.2005 6:22 PM54
Oh, would a Satan worshiper really want a "clean, well-lit" place?
posted on 08.23.2005 6:26 PM55
Chris,
Actually, my point is that even if you made it that broad - the 1st amendment doesn't ban any political world-views. You could ban racist, sexist, violent world views - because they were racist, sexist or violent.
Even at the height of the cold war (although not further back) Marxism was legal; you could not only oppose the Vietnam War on moral grounds but side with the North Vietnamese; and you can now stand in the street (and use public facilities) to organize for any political system you want.
posted on 08.23.2005 6:40 PM56
"Oh, would a Satan worshiper really want a "clean, well-lit" place?"
I'm guessing that good ventilation and access to a fire extinguisher is key.
posted on 08.23.2005 6:44 PM57
tgirsh wrote: And in any case, suppose we were to agree, just for the sake of argument, that true neutrality on religion is impossible.
The issue isn't "neutrality of religion", rather, it's "neutrality of worldview". And that is impossible.
Even in this case, refraining from religious exercise in government functions -- "favoring nonreligion," as you put it -- is still far more equitable and preferable then selecting one particular religion over all others and exercising that.
You cannot favor naturalism over theism. And theism is the basis of our freedoms, as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
If court proceedings (for example) don't start with the Lord's Prayer, this offends no one.
It offends me. In fact, I'm offended every time a prayer doesn't end with "in Jesus' name".
If they do start with it, this potentially offends a sizeable group present, and for what?
How did lack of offense ever become a criteria for truth?
In any case, we have a secular republic, and intentionally so.
No, we don't. What Creator endowed you with your rights?
58
bevets:Neutrality is a myth. People who who do not want to acknowledge God are NOT neutral. They are 'people who do not want to acknowledge God'
Suppose you are in a room that contains 30 people and it is Super Bowl Sunday. 20 people want to watch the game, 6 people want to watch a movie, and 4 people want to leave the tv off.
Define Neutrality.
tgirsch:Excellent analogy, made even better if you point out that the 30 people in the room aren't there to watch TV, but to do a job. Neutrality then stipulates that the TV stays off while people get their job done; they can go and watch football (or a movie, or do neither) on their own time.
bevets: You may not hijack the analogy. There is no stipulation about what the people are 'supposed to be doing' The whole point of the analogy is for them to decide what they will do. Once again: Define Neutrality for this situation.
tgirsch
The point wasn't to "hijack" the analogy, so much as to point out that it was a lousy one. Where they are and why they are there is integral to the question at hand.
I contend that the analogy is very good, and the reason you dont like it is because it clearly illustrates the poverty of your position. 'Where they are' and 'Why they are there' are both facets of 'What they will decide to do', however your decision to limit 'what they will decide to do' based on 'Where they are' and 'Why they are there' is nothing more than a restatement of your personal preference.
Otherwise, going by the conclusion you're apparently trying to lead me to, the majority in the room get to decide. Except that the "room" is America, and the largest group are the Catholics. Shall we establish Catholicism, then?
A federal church is not allowed by the establishment clause, however state churches would be and have been perfectly acceptable.
In any case, to answer your analogy as given, I'd submit that they should watch no TV, as this is the least offensive option (even if the least represented one). Watching no TV is far less of an imposition than watching something you don't want to watch (or worse, are ideologically opposed to).
There are 20 people in the room who strongly disagree with your decision. Who gave you the ability/right to decide which is the greater offence/impostition? If Group A chooses to make a louder fuss than Group B, some may conclude that Group A has suffered the greater imposition, however others may conclude that Group A is less tolerant of divergent opinions.
posted on 08.23.2005 6:57 PM59
Larry Lord wrote: And the answer is that in the United States we have a system of government where the beliefs of particular religions are not accorded the same weight as facts.
Notice Larry's implicit declaration that religion equals myth. This is neither neutral nor true to facts. Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, and this means that naturalism is false.
And our Declaration of Independence is based on a theistic worldview; the statements therein cannot be supported, as written, by atheism.
posted on 08.23.2005 7:04 PM60
JCHFleetGuy:
Generally, separtion issues now come down to use of public facilities for private religious purposes.That's only one aspect (and one in which I generally agree with the Supremes), but there are others, such as religious displays on government property (where I take a more dim view than the Supreme), "celebratory deism" (ditto), and actually incorporating religious practices into government functions (e.g., prayers to open town hall meetings, etc.). And in these cases, prohibiting such practices unfairly discriminates against no one.
Again though, the Supreme's outlawed one display they considered to advocate the religion(s) connected to the Ten Commandants; and allowed one they thought stressed its historical basis for laws of our country.It should come as no surprise to you that I disagree with them. In fact, there's no evidence that the Ten Commandments have any "historical basis for [the] laws of our country." (Name four federal laws which derive from the Ten Commandments. As a bonus, describe why those laws are unique to the Ten Commandments.) The cynic in me says that the supremes ruled as they did primarily because of the age of the displays. The allowed one had been there for a long time, and hence had "historic significance," whereas the rejected one was new.
Of course you can.No, you really can't. You're essentially arguing that if you go to a buffet and can eat whatever you want, you have "freedom," even if not eating at all isn't an option.
A hallway display in a school called "The Beliefs of our Students"? If the atheists couldn't create a display "tasteful" enough - the Courts get involved; but assuming there are display standards everyone can meet - then you have "freedom of" with[out] "freedom from".I think you're operating from a different definition of "freedom from religion" than I am. This isn't to say that you're never exposed to any religion, just that you aren't required to acknowledge or practice any particular religion. In other words, true freedom of religion means being able to exercise any religion or none at all.
Within government, this becomes a practical problem. It's simply not possible for government to give equal time and lip service to every religion, no matter how many hypothetical scenarios you concoct. Much easier for the government to simply refrain from any religious practice and in the process offend no one.
posted on 08.23.2005 7:07 PM61
JCHFleetGuy:
I also noticed that you didn't really address this point:
Does the absence of a decalogue in a courtroom send you, a Christian, the message that you will be treated less fairly than an atheist? No, it does not. Does the presence of a decalogue send a message to those who don't believe in / adhere to the Ten Commandments? Yes, it does. (Don't believe me? Just ask the people who want to put it there!) So on which side should one err?You responded with what the Supremes ruled, not with what you think about it. I'm sure you've disagreed with the Supremes before. So if you agree with them, why do you agree? If not, why not?
Also, can't resist:
I am a pretty strict constructionistI rather doubt it, but that's another thread. :) posted on 08.23.2005 7:10 PM
62
"Notice Larry's implicit declaration that religion equals myth. This is neither neutral nor true to facts."
I didn't imply anything of the sort. This is an incontrovertible fact. Go and kill someone and say that "God told you to do it." Will your public defender hire a group of bona fide preachers to testify in your favor? Or will he hire a psychiatrist to declare you insane based on FACTS that have nothing to do with whether Christ died and was resurrected.
I'll admit this, wrf3: if you take the discussion down this road, then there is no point in having a discussion. We can all just shut up and listen to you preach the Word.
Is that what you want?
63
A point of clarification. When I said "this is an indisputable fact," I was referring to my statement (disputed by wrf3) that "in the United States we have a system of government where the beliefs of particular religions are not accorded the same weight as facts."
posted on 08.23.2005 7:26 PM64
Larry Lord wrote: "in the United States we have a system of government where the beliefs of particular religions are not accorded the same weight as facts.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
posted on 08.23.2005 7:30 PM65
Larry Lord wrote: [that religion equals myth] is an incontrovertible fact.
I don't think the word incontrovertible means what you think it means.
Go and kill someone and say that "God told you to do it." Will your public defender hire a group of bona fide preachers to testify in your favor? Or will he hire a psychiatrist to declare you insane based on FACTS that have nothing to do with whether Christ died and was resurrected.
How would my killing someone prove or disprove the Resurrection? Furthermore, what is the connection between what Jesus did and what God says? Furthermore, "what God says" is not unknowable, so I disagree with your premise.
66
Tgirsch,
Actually, I do not even notice whether or not the Ten Commandments are posted; or think that their existence (or posting) has any impact on how my fellow humans will practice and extend justice to me or anyone else. Anyone who thinks justice will improve by their posting is just silly. Do they think that people read the walls and practice what they preach? How naive.
Anybody who says that they feel threatened by such a display is just plain silly. Do they really think people read the walls and practice what they preach? How naive.
You're age analysis on the displays may be right. As to the historical basis of the Ten: American law is deeply based in English Common Law; which rose in a country with a continuous history of state religion - 1st Catholicism; and then Anglicism. To paraphrase the current Iraqi Draft Constitution: No law [could] be passed that violated [Christian] standards. Do you think you can separate English Common Law from Christianity; and US law from English Common Law? Read Roe v Wade and see how much the Supreme Court looked at English Common Law; and Christian religious practice when it decided that case. Indeed, I believe that in deciding Roe they violated Separation by explicitly accepting one religious view over other religious views in arriving at their decision.
Now, I believe in Natural Law so I think God's hand is evident in most cultures having essentially the same moral basis; so I agree that even if I said "Thou shalt not murder" was the basis of our laws on killing - it would not separate it from Thailand's laws before colonialism (remember that colonialism thing before you discuss other non-Christian countries laws BTW). But that is another post.
posted on 08.23.2005 7:43 PM67
bevets:
I contend that the analogy is very good, and the reason you dont like it is because it clearly illustrates the poverty of your position.Contend all you want, you'd be wrong. The analogy stinks, unless your point is supposed to be "the majority should be able to do whatever they want, screw everyone else," which I doubt was your point. (And I guarantee it wouldn't be the point if you were one of the ones who wanted to watch a movie...)
A federal church is not allowed by the establishment clauseOnly if we establish a federal church; however we could establish a federal preference for Catholicism without establishing a formal church, you don't run afoul of your strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
however state churches would be and have been perfectly acceptable.Well, only if you ignore the incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment (in which case, as far as the federal constitution is concerned, states could ban Christianity if they wanted to), and only if you ignore the state constitutions, most (if not all) of which forbid official churches there, too. In fact, most states have church/state provisions that are more restrictive than the federal one. Even Alabama. In fact, I'm not aware of any state that doesn't have a restriction at least as stringent as that of the federal Constitution.
There are 20 people in the room who strongly disagree with your decision. Who gave you the ability/right to decide which is the greater offence/impostition?The people who drafted the rules for the room a couple of centuries ago, and the people tasked with interpreting those rules and settling disputes that arise from them.
Then again, I have to reiterate why the analogy is flawed: because in the "real life" cases you're trying to model, the people are there for reasons having nothing to do with watching TV, and further, all 20 are required to be there, so leaving if they're offended isn't even an option.
But since you're unable to address the complicated real-life scenarios, you're forced to resort to manufactured oversimplistic ones.
wrf3:
And our Declaration of Independence is based on a theistic worldview; the statements therein cannot be supported, as written, by atheism.Unfortunately for you, they cannot be supported, as written, by Christianity, either. Unless, of course, you can point me to the scripture that states that the power of government comes from the consent of the governed, and that people have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'll save you the time: it says no such thing.
The religious statements in the Declaration are deistic in nature, and in any case, the Declaration does not govern us, the Constitution does; and the Constitution makes no mention of God (other than in giving the date in accordance with the standard at the time, "Year of our Lord").
posted on 08.23.2005 7:46 PM68
wrf3
"Larry Lord wrote: [that religion equals myth] is an incontrovertible fact."
Man, that's just rude.
posted on 08.23.2005 7:58 PM69
tgirsh wrote: Unfortunately for you, they cannot be supported, as written, by Christianity, either. Unless, of course, you can point me to the scripture that states that the power of government comes from the consent of the governed, and that people have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'll save you the time: it says no such thing.
I will agree with you about the consent of the governed -- it doesn't address the issue -- but I don't agree with you about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I can support each one of these.
The religious statements in the Declaration are deistic in nature,
Deism is one form of theism, which was the point. The Declaration of Independence cannot be supported from an atheistic worldview.
and in any case, the Declaration does not govern us, the Constitution does; and the Constitution makes no mention of God (other than in giving the date in accordance with the standard at the time, "Year of our Lord").
Without the DofI there would be no Consitution; furthermore I believe that the DofI is a part of the law of the land, although I need to try to find the reference, instead of relying on memory.
posted on 08.23.2005 8:12 PM70
Larry Lord wrote: Man, that's just rude.
I'm sorry, but I don't see what was rude about it. I thought that the elision was a faithful reproduction of your statements. What did I not get right?
posted on 08.23.2005 8:14 PM71
tgrish wrote: The religious statements in the Declaration are deistic in nature...
BTW, this can't be the case. A deistic god does not interfere in nature. Such a god therefore does not communicate with man, in particular, such a god does not grant rights.
posted on 08.23.2005 8:19 PM72
JCHFleetGuy:
Actually, I do not even notice whether or not the Ten Commandments are posted; or think that their existence (or posting) has any impact on how my fellow humans will practice and extend justice to me or anyone else.A luxury you have from being in the majority on this issue. A luxury not everyone shares. Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean the problem isn't there.
Anyone who thinks justice will improve by their posting is just silly.Here, I agree, which belies the argument (often given by Commandments proponents) that such displays might help. So at least we can agree that the proponents and defenders of the displays are disingenuous in their defense thereof.
Put it this way: what's the purpose of putting the commandments displays there in the first place? If you think "to honor their historic significance" is anywhere near the top of the list, then you're the naive one...
Anybody who says that they feel threatened by such a display is just plain silly.I suppose any Southern Black who feels threatened by a Confederate Naval Jack display is "silly," too.
Regarding English Common Law, I contend that it can largely be divorced from Christianity. Modern Mathematics are born of Islamic nations; does it follow, then, that mathematics are "founded on" Islam?
The US Constitution is founded on Christianity to the extent that it used Christianity as its inspiration. Which is to say, not at all. And the founders largely felt that way, too. Unless, of course, you think they were lying when they crafted the treaty of Tripoli...
posted on 08.23.2005 8:21 PM73
wrf3:
Such a god therefore does not communicate with man, in particular, such a god does not grant rights.And nowhere does the Declaration claim otherwise. It says that men are "endowed by their creator" with these rights. This was done at the time of mankind's creation (which is why they are "inalienable") rather than granted and revoked on an ongoing basis.
Points for a creative (if odd) counterargument, however.
posted on 08.23.2005 8:24 PM74
okay, so you "don't know" what a non-neutral court would look like. Similarly you are stumped as to whether in fact there are any type of rulings that really 'take a stand against all religion'.
So, I take it you are also willing to abandon your statement that "non-neutrality" was intended to be part of the constitution as well?
That said, what is left of this post?
Perhaps, the Court does its best to be neutral and tries its best to stay out of the business of defining religion although it is forced to in order to determine what affairs it should stay out of. Sounds like a tough job. And, nobody's perfect.
Except for evangelicals who seem concerned that a few of the court's decisions allow Americans freedom to conduct themselves in a maner inconsistent with evangelical views of morality, I can't really think of another group or sect or ethnic group or whatever who views the role the Court has taken for itself in this area of the law with such dissatisfaction and contempt.
75
The point I think that Joe and bevets are making though is that that decision is not neutral. Let's take a nativity scene on public property during Christmas. If you say, remove it because it is religious in nature, then in a sense, you are saying that atheism, as a religion, gets preferential treatment. Nothing that will offend atheists or non-Christians is allowed. Hence, the decision is not neutral.
Nice try but you are equating the absence of a nativity with atheism. Atheism, if you want to call it a religion, does not have many symbols so it