Is there such a thing as the separation of church and state?

What the committee is doing doesn't make any sense. They're essentially making Christianity the official religion by majority decision, and the word "majority" doesn't belong anywhere near a Constitutional dispute. After all, the Bill of Rights is in some ways antidemocratic, designed to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

But yes, the prevailing interpretation (or at least the best, in my view) is that government at all levels is prohibited from even endorsing any religion, religion in general, or irreligion.

 

This has troubled me for quite sometime now. I mean why do we say God when we say the Pledge of Allegiance? Now, I'm Catholic and a firm believer in God but if there is such a thing as separation of church and state shouldn't the word God be omitted? And another thing that bugs me is this lady at work, a real nice lady and all but then we were talking about the presidential election and she said she would not vote for Obama for sole fact that he's "Muslim", which he denies. I go on to say that you shouldn't vote against someone because of their religion or heritage but rather what they're all about and what they're going to do or not do for this country. I deal with a lot more racism at work as well I'm starting to feel my job isn't worth all the negativity.

 

Thomas Jefferson, apparently, thought that he and the rest of the founders built in a seperation of church and state.

source

[rquoter]

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

[/rquoter]

 

Fundamentalists often try to brainwash their followers with this "there's no such thing as the separation between church and state" crap. As with trying to inject intelligent design into science classes, it is part of their concerted effort to turn our nation into a fascist theocracy.

The "wall of separation" that Jefferson refers to is an obvious implication of the 1st Amendment, and is reinforced by many Supreme Court decisions, the most important being Lemon v. Kurtzman.


Very interesting article, by the way. I found it hilarious that the fundamentalist committee members cried about their right to pray being threatened, and then proceeded to say that a Jewish prayer would be offensive. I am truly sorry if this is a common attitude in your community.

 

Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to add this:

Matthew 6:5-6

 

Any time religion gets into a position of power, you can expect a lot of people to suffer, die, and be judged and ridiculed.

Did God make man, or did man make God?

DD

 

"those who think religion has nothing to do with politics understand neither religion nor politics"


you know who said that? Gandhi.

Personally, as an atheist, i'd rather not deal with any kind of prayer. but ya know what, i'd rather put up with a christian prayer than have to deal with 20 different prayers. I mean, it's already a waste of my time, so i say keep it short as possible.

and trying to stop people from praying is just a foolish losing battle.

 

I'm atheist, and I'm really not as big an opponent of religious activities in school as my religious affiliation would suggest.

However, I have a BIG problem with mixing Christianity with part of the school culture. It would be one thing if Bhuddist can perform their prayers, Muslims can pray to Allah, Heathens can pray to Zeus, and atheists can just take a nap. But you know the same people who are advocating prayers in school would find the above scenario appalling.

 

The answer to this issue is both logical and constitutional.

First of all Jefferson cleared this issue constitutionally as far as intent as was posted above in his letter to the Baptists in Connecticut-

Quoting "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state"

Jefferson makes is clear that the government should make no law trying to establish one religion over any other, nor should any one individual be prohibited by the government for the free exercise of one's religion. Thus clearly providing a wall between government interference in one's personal and constitution right to exercise religious beliefs freely in public.

The wall of separation is clearly defined in this letter as a protection against state religions as they experienced in Europe where the nations were primarily either Roman Catholic or Protestant as state or federal religions.

And it also reaffirms that the government has no right to legislate anything that prohibits the exercise of one's religion in public.

That is the obvious and intelligent view of Jefferson's remarks.

Here is how the school board should have correctly and constitutionally handled this situation.

1. For these who desired to pray and ask their God for help or direction they were exercising the freedom to express their personal religious duty. They should be allowed to do this without government restriction.

If the Jewish woman/board member objected to participate in that prayer because it was Christian in intent then she should not be forced to participate and she should have been given opportunity to act independently either by leaving during the prayer, having opportunity to pray if she so desired in a way consistant with her own religious views or the prayer could have been structured in a way that was not offensive: that could have been handled easily this way-

The leader of the meeting could announce that there would be a Christian prayer during the first 5 minutes of the meeting, the prayer would be soley voluntary without any intent to penalize those who did not wish to participate. Anyone offended by such prayer could certainly skip that part of the meeting. He could have emphasized that the prayer was strictly voluntary and only had bearing on those who believed as such.

This is the same logical approach that should be taken in a school when something is promoted or something is directed by school officials that is offensive to people's religious exercise. For example, if there was a presentation in school on reincarnation that a Christian found offensive, then the Christian student should be afforded the same option to participate on a voluntary basis.

These issues are not that hard to handle honestly and justly.

Instead of reacting to this Jewish woman's faith, those Christians should have respected her reservations and given her the opportunity to separate herself from the prayer time without reprisal.

Comments like "no one has ever protested before" are rude and un-Christian. She should have been shown respect and understanding and allowed to choose for herself whether to participate in a Christian prayer.

That is how freedom of religion protects the rights of all people of faith without legislating religion to all.

True religion should not be legislated or forced.

The prayer time of anyone in authority should be a matter of religious exercise, conscience and personal conviction without forcing anyone else to participate.

If there is a Christian prayer offered at a football game or a commencement exercise this should be announced in advance and there should be a disclaimer that it is voluntary and in no way is anyone expected to pray. There is no wrong in talking or sitting or ignoring prayer if you have no reason to participate.

All these so called separation of church and state issues should be settled by simply allowing everyone to freely express or freely reject religous expressions.

If I was at a meeting and a Catholic priest asked everyone to pray to Mary, I would not be offended nor would I protest, nor would I participate. I don't believe in praying to Mary.

It is right for some people to do that, but in my own conviction it is not right.

So we can have peace and liberty without doing anything more than respecting the constitution which simply states that the government cannot make a law to establish one religion and no individual can be prohibited from exercising their religious faith.

 

That is an absolute statement.

That's like saying everyone who thought VSpan needed more playing time when he was a Houston Rocket doesn't know anything about the NBA.

Any time a religious person has power there is a risk that people will suffer, die and be judged and ridiculed. - That is a verifiable statement.

Any time that a policeman pulls his weapon there is a risk that people will suffer, die and possibly be unfairly treated. - That is a verifiable statement.

If you asked the question did man create god or did god create man.

The answer is simple.

Some men believe they created god, some men believe god created men.

We are divided on the opinion.

 

I dislike invocations at any public (i.e., government) function.

And seperation of church and state exists, but you have to constantly fight to maintain it against an armada of religious loonies convinced the idea is somehow threatening.

 

What if the meeting has nothing to do with religion and you are in a hurry to finish it as soon as possible?

I have absolutely no problem with people believing in their religions. However, I do have a problem with people who inconvenience me by practicing their religions outside their personal spaces on secular occasions.

 

I respect your dislike of invocations.

Do you respect my like of invocations. If I asked to pray before a school assembly and said it this way- " I would like to offer a short prayer, please do not feel you should participate, this is only a personal religious expression, I highly respect you for ignoring this if you feel any offense"

If you were sitting in the school assembly would you be kind enough to humor my invocation even though you disliked it. I would think you could humor me out of respect since I communicate my expressed religious reason to you in advance.

Now honestly, doesn't the constitution protect my liberty to express myself religiously as long as I do not try to legislate such religion?

I think it is civil to humor those people who are misguided and religious as long as nothing is forced.

If you lead a school assembly and started out by saying "there is no god so I would appreciate no one praying for the school or the students during the assembly"

I definately would respect that and at that time I would not see any reason to pray for anyone.

Why make a big deal about simple ideas of religious freedom, respect and free expression?

Read Jefferson's letter that was posted carefully. Consider the wording- Congress shall pass no laws establishing....

 

Just be considerate and sensible, if the meeting itself has nothing to do with religion but someone in authority wants to begin the meeting expressing a religious prayer for the help of god then do it in a way that is appropriate, short and sweet. And by all means since it might offend some - communicate so that no one feels any pressure.

If there is not enough time for a short prayer, if everyone is in a hurry just skip the prayer.

I am inconvenienced by alot of things people do but I would never consider denying them constitutional protections because of my inconvenience.

We need to get along better, be more tolerant of those who express their religion publically and also those who do should be much more considerate of those who are not religious.

There is no need to react to me as a Christian, I have no intention of forcing my beliefs on you.

 

It's highly dependent on the prayer.

For example, my wife used to work at the alley theatre, and they had some deal with the county that gave them a discount or something. Anyhow, to work out this group rate she ended up having to appear at city hall for a formal proclamation of some sort (I forget the details). Before the little ceremony began, a pastor gave an invocation, and proceeded to use this opportunity to ask god to not let homosexuals get married (this was shortly before the marraige amendment was up for vote).

I don't think that was appropriate.

I guess if it was up to me, I'd rather there was no invocation - why gamble with outright bigotry or potential offense? It's not necessary. If you would like to pray or lead a prayer for some people prior to a meeting - go gather in the hallway and pray to your heart's content.

 

I would ask that you please not turn Jesus in a politician, that statement is clearly dealing with the pride of the righteous who flaunt their spirituality whereas a humble man should keep his prayers in secret.

If you want to contrast that completely, the Book of Daniel states that Daniel deliberately prayed openly in his house with the windows open even though if he was caught, he faced punishment by death. Prayer is not something to be ashamed of.


I must say the issue of church and state was a very heated subject growing up in a semi-fundamentalist household.

My stepfather was/is a radical and pretty much brainwashed everyone in the house to do/think exactly as he did.

He would argue that "separation of church and state" was meant solely to keep the government from establishing an organized religion and that the founding fathers were all basically the biggest Christians ever (even though most of them were Deistists, and supported the philosophies of atheist John Locke)

That being said, I agree with the points rhester has made. I believe myself to be a follower of Christ, and that includes first and foremost 1.) Love your neighbor as yourself and 2.) do unto others...

prayer is a great thing, and people getting together to pray is also a good thing, but while we cannot force our belief system down the throats of those who beg to differ, we can come to a mutual respect where we respect them enough to offer them alternatives, in exchange for their respect for our prayers to our Lord.

 

I totally agree with you.

When such religious expression is obviously abusive and mean then it should not be condoned.

I think common sense is needed, at least a little wisdom. That is the only way liberty can survive, people must use some good judgment.

 

I don't think a Christian should get bent out of shape if a public meeting was opened with a Islamic prayer. Be considerate and understanding.

I don't think a Christian should get overly upset if a school bans prayer. I don't think that is constitutional but sometimes you can't have things your way.

We have to seek peaceful solutions and reasonable ones to these issues.

Prayer has been a historic part of our nation's public life, it should not be that hard to continue it and also respect those who take offense.

We don't need the government to tell us how to treat each other right.

 

Just for a point of reference- all prayer is voluntary in our church also.
I even communicate it that way.


In fact that is why our prayer meetings are not well attended.