I see examples of overreaction about this all the time.

The President goes to church: let's film him, and try to make a point about how he is violating the religion and state rule.

Oops. You can't have an option to devote yourself to your country because it's in a public school and you can't say the words in "The Pledge of Allegiance" because saying something religious in a public school is clearly unconstitutional.

Now, really:

What defines a certain governmental function as supporting a specific religion, making the action unconstitutional?

Let's read the first amendment:

We can basically understand the purpose of this amendment by understanding the early history of the States. The people had recently come from Great Britain, where the Church of England was the official state religion. British law favored that church, and all others were considered, to one degree or another heretic. The Wesleyan movement which resulted in the Methodist church is a good example of the persecution non-Church-of-Englanders suffered.

The purposes of the first amendment are simple:
1) Do not establish a State religion
2) Do not give favor to anyone for their religious beliefs or practices
3) Do not punish anyone for their religious beliefs
4) Do not punish anyone for their religious practices, except those that are generally accepted to be immoral or unethical, such as human sacrifice
5) Do not punish anyone for not having a religion or professed belief

I see a lot of things condemned as violating the separation of church and state, and I have to disagree with most of them:
-- The U.S. President attending church (or not) does not violate the separation of church and state.
-- A student praying before an exam, by his own choice, does not violate the separation of church and state.
-- Repeating the Pledge of Allegiance, with the words "under God", does not violate the separation of church and state (unless you wish to omit the words and are punished for doing so)
-- A university exchanging a parking lot that it owns for a building owned by a prominent local church, where the building is equal or greater in value to the parking lot, and clearly provides an increased benefit to the university, even if that exchange allows the local church to build a new building near the center of campus, while debatable, still does not violate the separation of church and state. (This was an issue at Idaho State University a few years back)
-- Congress opening with prayer, so long as every denomination that wishes gets equal opportunity to lead, does not violate separation of church and state.

What defines a certain governmental function as supporting a specific religion, making the action unconstitutional?

This was pretty well covered by jeallon, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway. The states or federal gov. can't endorse a specific religion and make others follow that religion. If the president wants to go to church fine by me, and there's nothing to say he shouldn't or can't. He's a regular citizen in that respect, but he, and other members of congress, should be careful about how they endorse their religion and what they say about it. Personally, I think GW gets mighty close to the line, but hasn't crossed it. Similarly, I don't think the Pledge is unconstitutional because it is not mandated to say the Pledge (at least in most schools, and it's not a law that one must say the Pledge in any states to my knowledge).

So to answer your question, what make a certain governmental function as supporting a specific religion unconstitutional is...well, um, supporting a specific religion? Seems like a weird question.



That pretty much wraps is up I think.

The predominant method by which the SCOTUS decides Establishment Clause disputes is called the Lemon Test. Taken from the landmark case Lemon v. Kurtzman (403 U.S. 602), the test provides for a three pronged approach to settling these disputes:

(1) does the statute in question have a secular, legislative purpose,
(2) is the law's principle effect one that does not hinder or promote religion,
and
(3) does the law foster an excessive entanglemet between church and state.

It's a highly disputed test, but it is the precedent.

I tend to think that this "seperation of church and state" is overstated (although well-intentioned). My understanding of the Clause is that the government, cannot create laws that either respect an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. I can understand the hesitance of mandating a "federal religion", so to say. But the broad modern interpretation of the clause, which I feel is converse to original intent, has been allowed to reach too far. Despite his omnipresence in the public eye, the President has the right to attend whatever church he desires, despite the fears and comments of the naysayers. The President's attendance at Sunday services in no way leads me to believe that the Establishment Clause is in any danger of being violated. In my eyes, the singing of "Amazing Grace" from the 3rd pew during a morning service does not equate with making laws the establish or prohibit any type of religious-based law.

Is this meant to be a real life example? If so, let me state here that I strongly support the right of the President, and every other human being on Earth, to practice her religion as she sees fit, within the most minimal restrictions possible to avoid violating the rights of others.

That is because those of us who believe in the firmest possible wall between Church and State are also the strongest defenders of religious freedom.

The student has the right to pray, and to discuss religion, in any way which does not disrupt the class.

The school has no right at all to lead the students in any expression of any opinion about religion. That includes the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, anyone has the right to say the Pledge of Allegiance in any way which does not violate the rights of others -- but no government official, in any capacity, has the right to lead others under her power to say it.

(This would be true even without "under God." A free nation has no business demanding loyalty oaths from its citizens.)

Oh, but it's "voluntary," you say? Nonsense. When students -- captives of the educational system, we might say, with some hyperbole -- are led in any religious activity, those who choose not to participate are inherently made into pariahs of the system.

Imagine the school which asks you to say "There are no gods" every day. You are one of the few theists in the school. You are "allowed" to be made into an outcast as the others in the classroom show their support for the dominant majority opinion.



This question is sneaky, because of the word "specific." It seems to assume that it's OK for the government to promote theism, just because it isn't a specific kind of theism. I deny this. No government agency should be allowed to express any religious opinion at all. No government official should express any opinion about religion as part of the performance of her official duties. (She must be allowed to express any religious opinion at all as a private citizen, of course.)

"In God We Trust" on government-issued money -- a blatant violation.

Government money to any faith-based organization -- a blatant violation.

Prayer as part of any government activity -- a blatant violation.

The Pledge of Allegiance led by a school official -- a blatant violation.

Am I a fanatic about this issue? I leave that to your judgement. I merely echo the words of Martin Luther:

QUOTE

I guess it depends on which country we are talking about, but i presume its United States. So:

The goverment have already broken the "religion/goverment" thingy long time ago. The pledge for example have been enforced which is a clear religion/patriotic indoctrination. And the ones not wanting to, gets punished either openly, or other ways. (dont even debate this).

The president also has been clear about being religious, and on certain... erh, times, said he spoke to God(?), if i remember it correctly, which makes the goverment turn into a Theocracy by definition. Bush also been clear about his Christian faith (methodist) as the moral line for the country, once again, Theocracy.

Would this be breach against this precious constitution you always talk about?
Perhaps its just me??

Link

If the President happens to pray, and mentions that he does so, that does not make the U.S. a Theocracy. It is neither ruled by nor subject to religious authority. Being a Methodist, and considering the standards of morality advocated by the Methodist church when making decisions, does not make the U.S. a Theocracy.

Now, if he were using his time and resources to actively proseletyze for the Methodist church, or was choosing his cabinet based on their membership in the Methodist church, then I would worry about us becoming a Theocracy.

On the other hand, forbidding the President to attend Church, believe in God, pray to God, or mention that he does any of these things, or even let it be known that he does these things...that is a Theocracy, and is ruled by and subject to the Church of Atheism (sort of a misnomer, but you get my point )

I don't wish to rehash the Pledge debate again, but I don't think requiring an oath of loyalty is asking too much. To be granted the privilege of living in America, it is not unreasonable to be asked to promise to be loyal. Especially since it is nothing more than a moral pledge. It has no legal standing.

If it is a religious activity, then by no means should it be promoted by the school. If it is a patriotic activity, that is a different matter.

How is this a violation? Does carrying currency with a slogan that offends you, in any way establish a religion for you, or prevent the free exercise thereof?

Agreed, if it is on the basis of their being a religious organization, and not that they are receiving the money for some secular reason and coincidentally happen to be religious.

If compelled to participate, then yes a violation.

If I understand your position, you argue this is a violation even if the words "Under God" were removed. If not removed, I can appreciate your point. If they are removed, then it does not even approach being religious, and is therefore not a violation of the religion clause.

Despite all my naysaying here, I do in fact respect your opinion, Victoria, and appreciate many of your points.

Neither do I , but since you did indeed opine, allow me to do so as well.


The Founding Fathers clearly disagreed with you. The did not include in the Constitution a requirement that natural born citizens proclaim any "oath of loyalty." There was no "pledge of allegiance" in America for it's first 100 years.

I am not "granted the privilege of living in America!" Neither is any other natural born citizen. For us, it is a right. We get to live here because our mothers gave birth to us here. Any genuine patriotism (or allegiance) we feel comes from learning history and living in (relative) freedom. Regurgitating a short poem written by a Socialist Baptist Minister is a poor substitute.

As to the debate question:
I join Victoria Silverwolf in rejecting the premise of the question. The Constititution does not include the word "specific" in front of the word "religion". Nor behind it, nor above it nor below it for that matter... Not there... Just..."religion"...

blingice

You have a good question for debate, but this preface is lacking.

The constitution has two religion clauses:

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

Those of us who interpret the establishment clause to mean absolute separation of church and state usually believe just as strongly in the free exercise clause. I really don’t care what Bush does on Sunday morning. He’s Methodist and should be allowed the privacy available to any other citizen to worship as he chooses or for that matter roll over and go back to sleep. It's his choice.

What riles some of us up is when he takes the message out of the White House and it gets commingled with public policy. I think his approach to embryonic stem cell research is a good example of this. What other purpose did it serve than to appeal to the religious right?

Here’s a link to the religious affiliation of the presidents. Quite a diverse lot:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

The times there seems to have been a problem were when rabid anti-Catholicism tarnished Al Smith's (1928 unsuccessful) and John Kennedy's (1960 successful) runs. There was also some controversy surrounding John Kerry's bid. Remember, he was Catholic and some bishops sought to deny him communion because of his pro-choice position. George Romney, a Mormon, also received some religious scrutiny. He was defeated for the Republican nomination in 1968 by Richard Nixon. The controversy about Romney involved a Mormon policy of not allowing Blacks in its priesthood. I don't know if the LDS church has modified this position. I try hard not to think about them unless they ride up to my door on a bicycle, clad in coat and tie in 100 degree heat--with no helmet.

http://www.amxfiles.com/amc/romney.html

Well, I don't really think that a prayer before school board meetings imposes a group or individuals religion on others, so the perimeters I would set would be:

1.) Anything that does not allow choice of opting out or not participating in prayer or another form of religious ceremony/practice.

1.5) Anything that explicitly names an omniscient or omnipotent being (i.e., Allah, Jehovah, etc.)

2.) Anything overtly or anything showing favor to one religious/holy text or book placed in a public forum.

3.) Readings or viewings of religious tapes/DVDs/recordings or faith-based articles in a public forum that pay homage to a specific religious affiliation.


I have no real problem, though apparently some guy from California does, of an omniscient entity being mentioned, as long as no clear definition or description of which god/deity/religious figure/mythical creature/philosophy/spiritual advisor. A clear definition? Well, like I have said: must be a clearly specified god or religion.

I'll concede those points. You are correct that there was no initial Pledge, and that living in America is a right, not a privilege.

However, students saying the Pledge in school, with or without the phrase "under God" is not a violation of the Constitution or their rights. If it is an issue, let the parents and the school work it out. And if one student is the only one to not say the Pledge, and is teased by his peers...well, being treated differently for acting differently is part of life, and is certainly not reason to deprive the other 99% of the school of the right of saying the Pledge.

I do not think anyone is suggesting the constitution denies the right to say the pledge of allegiance. The debate centers around whether the government is allowed to coerce children into saying it. Furthermore, the two are not linked (one or the other) as jaellon stated.

If the Pledge was discontinued today, I doubt there would be a bunch of kids crushed because they are not longer being lead to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

You state that coercion by ones peers and bullying is part of life. I disagree with you. It is behavior which should be discouraged and certainly not instigated by an expectation the children should recite the Pledge. Conform or suffer the consequences. Such an important lesson for kids to learn. Not.

------

There are parallels between the expectation to take an oath and religion. Both are belief systems. I believe in my deity because I chose to believe. I believe my country is the greatest because it is my country. People should be able to decide such for themselves. However, demanding or coercing people via government to take up the majority's belief system is unconstitutional. In its place, I would prefer our public schools teach our children critical thinking and skepticism.

Perhaps I should clarify my point. When you put it that way, then yeah, it doesn't sound so good.

Bullying should not be encouraged. Neither should pressure to conform to the majority view.

However, when the choices come down to:
1) Allowing an activity which the majority desires, while granting the minority to opt out,
2) Forcing all to participate, with or without their approval, OR
3) Cancelling the activity to avoid offending the minority

then the choice is clear: #1. Cancelling the activity altogether to protect the interests of the few, as might happen in #1, is a gross injustice to the many.

The debate over the Pledge of Allegiance and the inclusion of the words "Under God" are exactly this situation. Of course, depending on the community/school, the supporters of the Pledge may be the few, and in others they may be the many. That is why the reciting of the Pledge should be determined locally.

The wording of Pledge itself should be uniform, but I don't have a problem with someone remaining silent during the "offensive" clause, so long as they don't have a problem with me saying it.

This is not a fight over individual rights and has nothing to do with the majority vs. the minority.

It has everything to do with the government overstepping its bounds by enshrining by law an oath of allegiance to the country with expressly religious language.


Public opinion is irrelevant to whether this is appropriate, government enshrining religious language under law is fundamentally a betrayal of American legal values.

Again let me emphasize that, while the wording of the Pledge may be enshrined in law, it has no legal strength. You can not be convicted of breaking your allegiance pledge. As such, I see nothing that violates the first amendment.

When you condemn expressly religious language, you give more meaning to the first amendment than what is there. The Constitution only intended to separate Church and State, NOT God and State. There is a distinct and important difference, and we see that difference from the very beginning:

All 50 states mention God in their Constitution: Separation of God and State?.
Since before the founding of the U.S., and continuing afterward, the Congress opened each session with prayer.
Thanksgiving Day was adopted by Congress in 1782 as a day to give thanks to God.
The slogan "In God We Trust" has been on our coins since 1864 and our currency since 1957
That slogan also appears on the doors of both chambers of Congress.
Our national anthem contains the line "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust!' "
Every U.S. President has taken his oath on the Bible.

Now one of two things is happening here:
1) We have blatantly violated the first amendment since the beginning, and are only now becoming "enlightened".
2) We have understood the intent of the first amendment since the beginning, and a few anti-religionists are now trying to change its meaning.

#2 is clearly the case. The first amendment was intended to allow each person the freedom to worship or not as he sees fit, and to prevent the Church and State from meddling in each others affairs. It was never intended to banish God.

Now, since no constitutional violation has happened, it does indeed come down to local, public opinion. And I can find no precedent for it being a betrayal of American legal values...quite the opposite.

The constitution say the congress can "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" it say nothing about enforcement of that law or whether the law mandates a practice.

Pass...no...law. Simple as that.


Speaking for myself, one would have to have one seriously active imagination to call me an "anti-religionist".

I've explained in another thread I'm a protestant Christian who attends a religious college and rarely misses a church service.

I do not believe this makes it okay for the government to make any laws concerning a religious concept.

It is a fact that we blatantly violated the first amendment in this nation's history. Slavery is the obvious example and Separation of Church and State is certainly another.

Sure, we found legal loopholes to protect Jim Crow and the same to protect public school organizing prayer in their classrooms but the fact is they both violated the fist amendment whether of not the nation's legal system chose to acknowledge the fact.

Now that judges are in a position to rule more honestly on such matters, they ought to do so.

The Pledge does not establish a religion. Even if it were legally enforcable, it does not force any person to worship as the government mandates. It does not prevent any person from worshipping. It does not allow any Church to meddle in government affairs, nor vice versa. Therefore having the Pledge enshrined in law does not violate the first amendment.

I apologize for my choice of wording. I meant "those who want to remove any mention of God or religion from government," which is not the same thing.

With 200+ years of legal precedent allowing a government acknowledgment of God (so long as it does not define that Being), I see no reason for it not to be OK. If there is a problem it is that the first amendment is not clear enough on the separation clause.

Slavery and Jim Crow laws were indeed violations of the Constitution, and were ignored for many decades. That does not mean our laws touching religious principles have been. Again, I know of no law, slogan, or phrase that "establishes a religion" for me or "prevents the free exercise thereof."

I don't know how the 1st Amendment could be any clearer. The government will not create a specific religion, and everyone is free to practice any religion they want or none if they so choose.

The only problem for me is how the left has hijacked the whole separation of church and state issue over the years leading to the current absurdities. Hopefully when conservative thought reigns the Supreme Court shortly they'll set about clearing up all this nonsense.