![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerWhat does "separation of church and state" actually mean?
I read on Facebook about the girl in Rhode Island who campaigned for a religious mural to be removed from the gym of her high school. I saw a picture of it, and it looked quite old and--to be honest--relatively inoffensive. If it hadn't had "Our Heavenly Father" at the top and "Amen" at the bottom, it could have been any ordinary motivational poster. But Jessica Ahlquist made a big fuss, coincidentally getting her name in the papers, and religious nutcases everywhere rose to the bait with insults and death threats and "general hate." So atheists everywhere have banded together and established a scholarship fund for her, which is a nice gesture, assuming the Republicans don't get in and enforce Christian indoctrination on the entire population of the USA, which some seem to see as a real possibility.
"Separation of church and state." What is it? Why's it good?
It all seems to come down to the First Amendment, which says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means, if I understand the language correctly, that Congress cannot say "this is a Christian country" or "this is a Buddhist country" or "no Shintoists here please." That I get, and I agree with it. A plural society can't play favourites. (See what I did there? Recurring themes yet.) Somehow, though, over the two hundred and some years since then, this seems to have been extrapolated into this vast vague nebulous sort of restraining order thing whereby church and state have to stay x hundred yards away from each other Or Else, which means that people who run a state school can't mention God under any circumstances, and of course by the same token religious leaders can't get involved in the business of government...
...now just hold on a moment there, boy.
The fact is that the restraining order is being rigidly observed by one side and openly flouted by the other. The more the state pulls up its skirts in horror lest they should come into contact with the defiling pitch of religion, the more the church drapes itself all over certain parts of the government and tells it what to do. Separation by one side only is not possible. It isn't working. Like bipartisanship in American politics, one side is genuinely doing its best, and one side only cares when it's their activities being restricted. "Separation of church and state" has failed.
Over here in merrie old England, of course, we've had an establishment of religion for about five hundred years, and the end result is that on the whole nobody gives a toss. Most people of faith practice their faith (whatever it may be) quietly, despite numerous attempts to introduce American-style evangelism, and occasionally the Archbishop of Canterbury says something more or less fatuous which everybody ignores. People put "C of E" on forms when what they mean is "What?" or perhaps "well, yeah, you know, like I believe there's something, right, you know like maybe a God or something, but, you know, I don't go for all that organised religion stuff, I mean it's a bit old fashioned, innit, you gotta move with the times, right..." and so on. There's much less fuss about religion over here, and if people of different cultures get harassed or assaulted it's more likely to be because they look different or do better in school than your native British ficko. Plus we have some beautiful old churches to look at. Things are different in Ireland, of course, but that's mostly our fault for trying to colonise the place.
Fuss, sadly, is self-perpetuating. Side A does something that offends side B, side B retaliates, and we're off to the races. I don't know how it can possibly be deflated, and I don't like what I can see happening if it continues to escalate. It's worrying.
But I don't think separation of church and state is the answer.
EDIT: error of fact: Jessica Ahlquist didn't start the action to get the banner removed; that was the ACLU on behalf of an unnamed parent. Sorry about that. I also note that the banner had been there for nearly fifty years before the unnamed parent complained. I thought it looked old.
FURTHER EDIT: thinking about it, I wonder why the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU didn't ask the unnamed parent to serve as the plaintiff in the suit, being (a) the actual instigator of the complaint and (b) an adult and less liable to be subjected to the kind of excrement that got hurled at Ms Ahlquist? Or if they did, why he or she said no? No comment intended or implied one way or the other; it just seems curious.
I read on Facebook about the girl in Rhode Island who campaigned for a religious mural to be removed from the gym of her high school. I saw a picture of it, and it looked quite old and--to be honest--relatively inoffensive. If it hadn't had "Our Heavenly Father" at the top and "Amen" at the bottom, it could have been any ordinary motivational poster. But Jessica Ahlquist made a big fuss, coincidentally getting her name in the papers, and religious nutcases everywhere rose to the bait with insults and death threats and "general hate." So atheists everywhere have banded together and established a scholarship fund for her, which is a nice gesture, assuming the Republicans don't get in and enforce Christian indoctrination on the entire population of the USA, which some seem to see as a real possibility.
"Separation of church and state." What is it? Why's it good?
It all seems to come down to the First Amendment, which says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means, if I understand the language correctly, that Congress cannot say "this is a Christian country" or "this is a Buddhist country" or "no Shintoists here please." That I get, and I agree with it. A plural society can't play favourites. (See what I did there? Recurring themes yet.) Somehow, though, over the two hundred and some years since then, this seems to have been extrapolated into this vast vague nebulous sort of restraining order thing whereby church and state have to stay x hundred yards away from each other Or Else, which means that people who run a state school can't mention God under any circumstances, and of course by the same token religious leaders can't get involved in the business of government...
...now just hold on a moment there, boy.
The fact is that the restraining order is being rigidly observed by one side and openly flouted by the other. The more the state pulls up its skirts in horror lest they should come into contact with the defiling pitch of religion, the more the church drapes itself all over certain parts of the government and tells it what to do. Separation by one side only is not possible. It isn't working. Like bipartisanship in American politics, one side is genuinely doing its best, and one side only cares when it's their activities being restricted. "Separation of church and state" has failed.
Over here in merrie old England, of course, we've had an establishment of religion for about five hundred years, and the end result is that on the whole nobody gives a toss. Most people of faith practice their faith (whatever it may be) quietly, despite numerous attempts to introduce American-style evangelism, and occasionally the Archbishop of Canterbury says something more or less fatuous which everybody ignores. People put "C of E" on forms when what they mean is "What?" or perhaps "well, yeah, you know, like I believe there's something, right, you know like maybe a God or something, but, you know, I don't go for all that organised religion stuff, I mean it's a bit old fashioned, innit, you gotta move with the times, right..." and so on. There's much less fuss about religion over here, and if people of different cultures get harassed or assaulted it's more likely to be because they look different or do better in school than your native British ficko. Plus we have some beautiful old churches to look at. Things are different in Ireland, of course, but that's mostly our fault for trying to colonise the place.
Fuss, sadly, is self-perpetuating. Side A does something that offends side B, side B retaliates, and we're off to the races. I don't know how it can possibly be deflated, and I don't like what I can see happening if it continues to escalate. It's worrying.
But I don't think separation of church and state is the answer.
EDIT: error of fact: Jessica Ahlquist didn't start the action to get the banner removed; that was the ACLU on behalf of an unnamed parent. Sorry about that. I also note that the banner had been there for nearly fifty years before the unnamed parent complained. I thought it looked old.
FURTHER EDIT: thinking about it, I wonder why the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU didn't ask the unnamed parent to serve as the plaintiff in the suit, being (a) the actual instigator of the complaint and (b) an adult and less liable to be subjected to the kind of excrement that got hurled at Ms Ahlquist? Or if they did, why he or she said no? No comment intended or implied one way or the other; it just seems curious.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 01:05 pm (UTC)The reason secular establishments try hard or are pushed not to harbor religion or its expression is that no government money is theoretically supposed to be spent on a religious item/group/service lest it be thought to be favoring whichever sect or sept received the money (and permitting a heated or air-conditioned and plumbed school building to be used for a Bible study group has been construed as spending that money).
Vice versa, in theory, churches receive their tax-free status with the caveat that they stay out of politics. In practice, the only thing that can even remotely push toward revoking that status is pushing a specific candidate from the pulpit during a service. Note the numerous outs there (making the same recommendation on TV is fine; so is doing everything but speaking the candidate's name in church; you can easily devise a thousand or three more).
The real solution would be to reword that section of the First Amendment to include both the explicit ban on establishing a specific state religion and noting the precedence of secular law over religious in all circumstances (and possibly explicitly permitting exceptions to be carved out), but that's not happening. The best we can do is live with it, or better yet, make the de facto rules about that religions have to face far stricter, as I believe they were intended to be.
A quick question: sure, the UK has managed a more or less truce with religion despite (or because of) having a state religion. How many other countries can say that, and what percentage are they of the states that DO have a state faith? There are certainly cases where having a state religion is THE central problem for a nation or its people. It cuts both ways.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 01:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:12 pm (UTC)Or, apparently, on anything which a religious group opposes ... abortion, contraception, stem cell research ...
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:45 pm (UTC)There are buildings like that; they're called churches. There is, in fact, no shortage of them whatsoever.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 09:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 12:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 01:36 pm (UTC)"rose to the bait" implies that Jessica did it to make people angry, rather than to politely but firmly request that the law of the land be obeyed, and incidentally that people who do not believe in a Heavenly Father be treated equally. "coincidentally getting her name in the papers" also implies that she did it for attention; in this context and in combination with "bait" the "coincidentally" comes across as sarcastic. Assuming the worst about people because you really want to disagree with their religious views is unfair, and unworthy of you.
"A plural society can't play favorites."
This. Exactly. Government can't play favorites with one religion over another. Government can't use tax dollars to teach (for example in schools) that some religions are true, because that leaves out other religions, (by necessity, since they contradict each other, and since including them all would take more wall space than the gym *has*--the Pagans alone would take up a whole wall in fairly small print.)
A banner that states that there is a Heavenly Father leaves out the Goddess and thus favors some religions over others. If it's publicly posted in a building maintained by tax dollars and staffed by people paid by tax dollars for the public good of teaching the young, it's obviously government promoting some religions over others.
Sure, aside from that it is inoffensive. If the religious language were really unimportant--if it was meant to promote the non-religious values invoked, rather than the idea of God--the school would have removed the religious language--it was suggested, and it wouldn't have been hard to do. They absolutely refused to do that. The point was promoting a Heavenly Father--and no other God or Goddess or Principal or Power, and certainly no non-religious view.
"which means that people who run a state school can't mention God under any circumstances"
They are perfectly free, of course, to discuss religion's role in history and stuff like that. They are not allowed to imply that God is real. That being the easiest way to treat all religions equally, since there are so many of them, with such contradictory views that teaching all of them equally would take forever and be very confusing to boot. Most American schools have the good sense to avoid that time-sucking quagmire (I can picture the fights as some people strive for equal treatment for all views and some insist that they are in the majority or hold a higher truth or something and demand the lion's share of the time) and teach biology and chemistry and math and so on.
"Side A does something that offends side B, side B retaliates,"
The problem with suggesting some kind of equivalency here is that all it takes to offend side B is to teach real biology, or not endorse their religion with public tax dollars, or march in a Christmas parade with everyone else, or put up a billboard that says "Good without God? Millions are." or in general mention that people who don't share their religious views exist and have rights and maybe it would be nice if the dominant religion would stop actually standing on our faces, thanks ever so?
Sure some atheists are rude, and people get angry. But a lot of religious people are at least as rude, so I don't see why atheists should be held to a higher standard. And I don't think it's the least bit rude to request that the law be obeyed and that all religious views be treated equally.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:30 pm (UTC)Of course, my use of the term "nutcases" not only implies but outright states whose side I am on in this case, but I think you missed that one.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:52 pm (UTC)For example:
"But Jessica Ahlquist asked that the Constitution be obeyed, and religious nutcases everywhere reacted with insults and death threats and "general hate.""
It means exactly what you presumably wanted, without assuming anything bad about Jessica.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 02:54 pm (UTC)"But Jessica Ahlquist asked that the Constitution be obeyed, and a hopefully small minority of religious people everywhere reacted with insults and death threats and "general hate.""
Sorry; should have done that with the first reply.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 03:09 pm (UTC)And I'm still not sure that the language of the Constitution unequivocally supports this kind of action. "But Jessica Ahlquist invoked the precedent of Engel v. Vitale..." might be more accurate. Except, as noted above, it wasn't she who began it.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 03:39 pm (UTC)A sign placed in official government building, paid for and maintained by tax dollars, is favouring one (loosely-defined) branch of monotheism over other religions. I haven't gone over the decisions in Rhode Island in detail, but it would easily seem to violate Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 04:54 pm (UTC)We too have many beautiful old (and new) churches, though none as old as your oldest, of course.
IMHO the basic problem with separation of church and state is all religions are basically a set of laws. The United States chose to base its laws on Judeo-Christian ones, but often the Judeo part, which can be quite grim (an eye for an eye, stoning of adulterers, witches and homosexuals), are often at odds with the Christian part, which are often at odds with the public's version of common sense (abortion, contraception, etc.).
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 06:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 06:33 pm (UTC)Many of the founders were not Christians, but they all believed in god, and they all grew up with the Bible as their main guide to morality. Had they grown up with Buddha's teachings, this would have been a very different country with very different laws.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 06:46 pm (UTC)We all evolved with basic neurology that molds our perceptions. All religious leanings evolved out of that (which is not to demean others' spiritual beliefs, as the jury is still out as to what defines neurology). Even eastern philosophy has its arational precepts.
I know this is mildly splitting hairs but, with all the people stating "the USA is a Judeo-Christian country" I think it's VERY important to observe that this was not the conscious intention of the founders.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 06:56 pm (UTC)What you say has inspired me to rethink this. Had we based our laws on Christianity, wouldn't all crimes be forgiven? Hmmm.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-25 03:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 05:20 pm (UTC)However an adult might have had a job to be fired from. And might have a much harder time pulling up stakes and moving to a new and less prejudiced town. (I will note that the prejudice against Jessica is not limited to a handful of unpredictable nut-cases; the two florists in town are not willing to treat Jessica even like any other customer, much less like an innocent party whose treatment at the hands of their co-religionists the florist would like to make up for.)
Whereas Jessica is likely to go to college fairly soon (generally a more open and less prejudiced place, especially if she chooses carefully) and from there to, I'm guessing, a large city with a reasonable number of companies willing to consider having a known atheist on their staff.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-23 06:33 pm (UTC)For me, the problem is that the extreme rightists want to destroy the separation of church and state and turn this country into a theocracy, with their particular flavor of "God" as the only option.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 08:43 am (UTC)(1) Slavery is NOT a Old Testament matter, - nor, for the matter, is the traditional attitude to homosexuals, and so on. Paul dragged them into Christianity, along with much else.
(2) There is no such thing as a theocracy (rule by the godhead), only the rule by priests (for which there is a separate word, though I cannot find it off-hand). If you want proof of this, look at the history of the Papacy, with particular reference to the "holy wars" fought by the Renaissance Popes (not the Crusades of the Medieval Popes).
no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 09:40 am (UTC)(2) I was thinking hierophantocracy, but I don't think it can be that. (Ecclesiarchy? Helloooo dere.) And surely one's position on this depends on whether one believes in the particular godhead involved. Personally I think you're right, see all that bumph earlier about free will, but I could be wrong.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 10:23 am (UTC)(2) Can anyone tell me of a case of a theocracy where the godhead in question has actually clearly and unambiguously ruled by any means other than through the medium of the relevant priesthood?
And for those who wonder, I use the term God because because I am discussing the attitudes of that specific (supposed) entity, not the godhead in the abstract. Other versions of the godhead can, and sometimes do, have different views on these matters.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 11:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 12:16 pm (UTC)And if anyone could answer your question (without mentioning Akhenaten, who might have been faking it) we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-25 03:37 pm (UTC)It also gives a window into the events in that part of the world during that time, and an object lesson in how one's interpretation of events can be shaped by one's beliefs (a problem not limited to religious people, by the way; H G Wells History of the World is just as bad, though the bias had a very different source).
As for Akhenaten, I don't think he claimed godhood whist alive. He was, in his own eyes, a Pharaoh, a high priest descended from the gods, who also had certain other duties (leading armies, ensuring justice, those sort of things) and who, on dying, would be granted a special place at the side of the gods as a reward for his successful carrying out of his duties. The fact that he claimed that the gods were all masks for the one true god, the Aten, and that it was time to abandon the masks was the reason he was labelled a heretic by his successors' priests.
The idea that the ruler is a high priest, descended from the gods, who will acquire some degree divinity after dying is found all over the place. Indeed, that was the basis for the rule of the Japanese Emperors up to and including Hirohito - which explains why he was able to "declare himslef no longer a god" in 1945, in his eyes he hadn't been, and wouldn't be until he died.
Tiberius' claimed last words ("I appear to be becoming a god.") suggest he viewed the Imperial Divinity in much the same way, though how other Roman Emperors did is unclear to me.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-24 07:02 pm (UTC)As for 2, it depends on whether you buy the Caesars' claims of godhood. Jesus didn't, neither did the Maccabees. They were both dealt with, and not by priests.