Confounding

So after our TKD class recently, we went out for a "Staff Meeting," wherein the adult students/instructors get together at a local restaurant and chitchat about things while having drinks. 

During our meeting, one of the guys mentions that our community has a Hindu temple in it and while mentioning it, he noticeably cringed.  As he does this, I ask him, "And that is a problem?"  He at first starts to say no, but in the middle of his sentence, changes course and then expresses to me that he does have a problem, because (and I'm abridging this quite a bit) in his mind, there are two religions in this world, one which believes you are imperfect and must atone for said imperfection, and one which says you can achieve perfection through good acts, and that is the wrong one.  He then expresses to me that America was founded on religious principles, and cites, among others, "In God We Trust" on our currency as evidence.  I pointed out that it was not put on our (paper) currency until 1955 (I was mistaken, it appears to have actually been 1957), to which another one of our colleagues said I was right, but that I was also wrong - he didn't expound on how I was wrong other than to agree that the United States was founded on Christian ideals. 

The conversation then moved to the situation in Iraq and with ISIS/ISIL and why this is the end of days and why doomsday preppers are not all bad (I never said the preppers were bad, but I did say that ISIS could be compared to what might happen if our doomsday preppers decided to organize and try to push for what they believe is inevitable/right - mostly joking), but I digress.

The issue that this conversation brings for me is the notion, again, that this country is a Christian Nation, or that we exist based on Christian principles.  As to the latter, we have plenty of evidence that this nation is not a Christian Nation based on the founder's acts - notably, the Constitution, our governing document, which in its corpus makes no reference to God whatsoever, and the only mention of religion is in Article VI, Paragraph 3, which recites that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."  I've already written in the past regarding Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Church as well as his Letter to Levi Lincoln regarding same, as well as a letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh, PA.  Further, we have the Treaty of Tripoli, which includes in its body the sentence "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, —as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of (Muslims) —and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."  Unfortunately, I was unable to expound on my position, because explaining these facets requires far more time and effort that "we are a nation founded on Christian Principles" does, and it was time to get going...

I have stated before - the United States is a nation founded by Christians.  It is not, however, a Christian Nation.  This is an important distinction, and one which is lost on many people, including, perhaps, my dinner friends. 

Judicial Activism Lives

Of course, according to certain mindsets, it's not Judicial Activism if it's a decision that favors Christian Conservative mores, but I direct you to this post on Americans United and say that I share their disappointment. Perhaps I'll have more to add to this later, but for now I'll just say I think the Roberts Court just made a mockery of the 1st Amendment.

For more information on the background of this story, I direct you to a post I wrote some time ago on the subject, back in 2007.

On Separation

I've posted in the past letters from Lenni Brenner's book Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church and State. Tonight, I post one more from one of the Founders and framers of the Constitution.

This is James Madison's leeter to F.L. Schaeffer on December 3, 1821:

I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St. Matthew's Church in New York.
It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence and of a cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illiberality. It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due and (sic) Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of relugious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

Missing the Point

You've got to feel for those maligned Christians in Irving, Texas. Here they are, being discriminated against by their school district by being forced to wear their shirts tucked into their pants. A second grader(!) complained and asked for permission to violate the school's dress code, because she felt like she was being "persecuted for being a Christian," according to this article from Religion Clause Blog.

I can see it now, all those athiests, Muslims, and Buddhists on the school board gathered together in a dimly lit room, scheming of ways to persecute those minority Christians by making them tuck their shirts in. Can't you hear the evil, maniacal laughter coming from the bowels of the district? Yet, here comes this Crusader! She knows she's been maligned, and that her faith is under assault - she won't go down without a fight! She knows as well as anyone that if she doesn't take a stand on this CLEAR attempt to foil her faith, then all hope for Christianity in this nation are lost.

Of course, this is absurd. The policy was not made to "persecute" anyone, particularly not a 2nd grader who wouldn't know that word unless her parents fed it to her. No, the policy had a legitimate secular interest, did not have the primary (or, arguably ANY) effect of promoting or inhibiting religion, and doesn't even come close to entangling religion and government. In other words - it has no bearing on religion whatsoever. It's applied across the board - except for this 2nd grader, that is.

I wonder what's going to happen now in that district if a Muslim student insists on wearing her hijab - the school board clearly can't deny her that right. The district created a whole new problem, as they're going to have to answer every challenge to their dress code based on religious concerns.

Damn Activist Judges Strike Again!

I really don't understand what's going on with these judges in America. Man, they must REALLY hate our country. How else could they justify attacking our Nation's religion so much and so often? Clearly we are at war for our very country's soul!

What's happened to recently that put me in such a snit? Well, I'm glad you asked. I'm sure you've heard of the Country music group Diamond Rio, right? Is there anything more American than Country music? I mean, it's as American as Apple Pie! I'm not just saying that because I got to fly home in the same plane as Lyle Lovett, either (the man looks JUST like his photograph, it's uncanny). Well, this school in Florida has an assembly, and in the assembly, the third graders, all good loyal Americans who have said their Pledge of Allegiance, are given different songs to sing. One of the songs just happens to be a country song by Diamond Rio called In God We Still Trust. This is very American obviously, inasmuch as it's almost the same as what we have written on all our currency.

This is quite the patriotic song, too. The good folks at Americans United for Separation of Church and State have actually posted some of the lyrics, which I will relay here: "There’s no separation…We are one nation under Him…Now there are those among us, Who want to push Him out…From the schoolhouse to the courthouse, They’re silencing His word, Now it’s time for all believers, To make our voices heard."

Of course, some children, or their parents, just aren't good Americans. And they complained, like the whiners those anti-American anti-Christians they are (I know, it's redundant, but sometimes you have to be redundant to make your point). The school district, clearly showing more logic and composure than they had any real reason to, offered the insanely reasonable alternative that these children who didn't love their country could opt to not participate in the assembly at all. Wouldn't you know it - those Socialist God and America-hating people didn't like this completely fair and unbiased alternative at all, and they filed a lawsuit.

This is where the Activist Judges get involved. This guy must have really had his head shoved up his bum when he was learning civics, because he just completely turned the world on its head when he issued his holding. He actually had the gall (I cannot confirm whether he actually had his gall bladder, though) to side with these America-haters!

Using such devious tricks as "precedent," "stare decisis," and "the Constitution" to support his bench-legislation, he proceeded to hold that the school district was in the wrong for attempting to help its student body properly love this Christian nation. He had the nerve to refer to this as "proselytizing." Man, talk about marbles! from the article I just linked to, here's a quote from Judge Schlesinger, "In God We Still Trust [is a] song overtly espousing a specific religious viewpoint and attacking of those who do not share in the same belief."

Well escuse the heck out of me! But, I don't see the problem with people being told the right religion to have to love our country. This activist clearly is telling people that there's no room for God in America. You can tell by the bile (which would indicate that he DOES still have his gall bladder) in his opinion that he's just another America-hating liberal activist judge. I mean, the guy brings up the old canard "wall of separation," as though it's what the author of the First Amendment meant when he wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitng the free exercise thereof." I mean, it's almost as if he took Lemon, and Santa Fe, Lee v. Weisman, and the other cases clearly establishing the meaning of the First Amendment's religion clause and followed them like they were right, or something.

"But Steve," I hear you asking, "How do we know he's an activist judge?" Well, that's simple - he's gotta be a liberal given his audacity to rule against God, and he's clearly been appointed by - George H.W. Bush?! Well, wait just a moment. You know what, now that I go back and look at this again, with "fresh" eyes, I can see what genius there is in his writing. He makes such a cogent argument! It's as though I'm looking at the First Amendment all over again, only it's with eyes wide open! What brilliance! What loquaciousness! What art! Clearly, this man is a genius!

Some Conflict

Apparently, there's been a bit of a brouhaha over Georgetown University's covering of their religious symbols. This article at Religion Clause Blogspot contains an explanation as to why the University covered the symbols. Reportedly, it was to be "consistent with other policy speeches." Unsurprisingly, this explanation did not appease everyone. According to the article linked above, "Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society, said: 'It is such a sad commentary that Catholic universities are willingly hiding the most visible signs of their Catholic identity when hosting secular leaders.'"

I confess I'm a little conflicted with this situation. On the one hand, I have no problem with a President requesting religious references be removed when speaking - he does, after all, represent ALL Americans, not just Catholic (I use Catholic because Georgetown is a Catholic university) Americans. On the other hand, however, the President is knowingly speaking at a Catholic university. I'm not convinced that by merely speaking in front of the dais provided by the location he selected for his speech that he would be endorsing that religion (conversely, I am CERTAIN that by covering said symbols he is not condemning that religion).

I don't know. I guess my inclination is to believe that this is much ado about nothing - an attack on a Christian by other Christians because he's not the Christian they want in office and are hoping to glean some advantage, from the p.r. this phony outrage causes.

He Who Pays the Piper

Calls the tunes. This is an old phrase that doesn't get nearly enough attention. It's beautiful in its simplicity - if you accept the money, you have to accept the conditions surrounding it. This is very much the assessment given to the law schools who argued against having military recruiters on campus because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy when their position was shot down in the courts. The schools accepted federal dollars, and in exchange for receiving these funds, the schools were obliged to accept recruiters as a condition. The schools wanted the sweet, but didn't want the bitter, and thus fought against this requirement, and were rightly defeated.

While this lesson has been learned in the law school financing sector, apparently, this lesson was lost on the Christian Legal Association at the Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. The Association sought formal recognition from the law school. There's nothing wrong with that, our law school had a Christian Law Society; I knew several members and the faculty advisor and they are all good people. They sought funding in the form of activity fees. This is absolutely fine - again, it's a student organization and they are allowed to seek these funds. Finally, they wanted the right to deny entry into their club all non-Christians and any gay students. This they cannot do. You see, the school has a policy that requires an open membership policy of all their student groups - in other words, you can't discriminate, something stipulated in the Court document holding against the Christian Law Society. This is perfectly a Constitutional holding, as the requirement passes the Lemon Test - there is clearly a legitimate secular purpose whose primary effect neither promotes nor hinders a particular religious belief, and the activity clearly does not foster excessive entanglement between the government activity and religious concerns.

The school is a public (state funded) school. The students pay for the student activities. The funds for student activities comes from the funds paid by the students. It should be a no-brainer that if an organization wants access to these funds, they're going to have to accept the conditions that come with having that access.

Whoever pays the piper calls the tunes. The school says nothing about what this Christian Law Society's members should believe. It says nothing about what any member of any student organization should believe. It merely says - "if you want to be a recognized student organization, then you have to have an open membership policy." Perfectly reasonable.

Now, the Society had an option - they could have remained an unrecognized student organization, which would then have allowed them to alienate anyone they wanted. But, they wanted recognition, and thus needed to accept the restrictions given them.

I have no issue with student organizations, even Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or Taoist ones. What I take issue with is the absurd premise that by forcing one organization to play by the same rules as all other student organizations, the school is somehow restricting their First Amendment rights, or assaulting Christianity.

For more on this topic, I suggest reading this post at Americans United.

It's a First Amendment Issue, Just the Wrong Clause

In 2006, Brittany McComb delivered her valedictorian speech at her high school in Nevada. According to this article on Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, her speech was interrupted by school officials, who pulled the plug on her microphone after she stated "[God's love] is something that we all desire, it's unprejudiced, it's merciful, it's free, it's real, it's huge, it's everlasting... God's love is so great that He gave up His only son."

You see, the school officials warned her that while she was able to reference her faith during her speech, she would not be allowed to proselytize. She apparently decided she didn't need to obey the officials. She even went on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, arguing that the school district violated her First Amendment rights, (again from the article linked above), "[the school district] denied me free speech, and it denied me the right to be who I am and who, you know, God made me to be."

While to an 18 year old who feels like she's been wronged, perhaps this could seem like the case. While she got the correct Amendment, she's unfortunately viewing the wrong clause. You see, the school district was right. Let's see why.

All right, the short answer is that the school district was right because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said so. Of course, those Christian Conservatives out there looking for a reason to discount this will point to this being the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is full of those "Activist Judges," you know, the ones whose opinions don't match your own. So let's delve just a little deeper, shall we?

First off, we have the Supremacy Clause - i.e. The Constitution and all laws and treaties entered pursuant to it shall be the "Supreme Law of the Land," (see U.S. Const. Art. VI). Then, you look at Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which says that the interpretation of the law is the province of the judicial department. This is all background to the part that matters with respect to this case.

The two cases that bear most heavily on McCombs's situation are Lee v. Weisman and Santa Fe ISD v. Doe. The former case, Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577 (1992), involved a school in New Jersey that invited local clergy to deliver invocations at graduation ceremonies. The Court held that unconstitutional coercion occurs when 1. the government directs 2. a formal religious exercise 3. in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors," (See Jones v. Clear Creek ISD, 977 F.2d 963, 971 [5th Cir. 1992]). You see, you can't create a situation where a student is obliged (even if the ceremony isn't *mandatory,* it's still a rite of passage and the alternative to avoid this to avoid being preached to fails any rational balancing. Of course, Lee involved a rabbi who had been invited to speak. McCombs is a student. Surely that's different, right?

Wrong. This situation was addressed just a few years ago in Santa Fe ISD v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, (2000). This involved a school district in Texas that would invite a student from the high school to deliver an invocation at a football game. Here, the Court differentiates between private (protected speech) and public speech,

The delivery of a message such as the invocation here–on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school’s public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer–is not properly characterized as “private” speech.

This is, as you may have guessed, unacceptable, and not unlike the facts presented in McCombs's situation.

What the school and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are saying, in a nutshell, is that there is nobody preventing McCombs from being a Christian, or believing in God, or worshipping God. In fact, there's nothing wrong with anybody believing anything they want. However, nobody, not McCombs, not any of the other students at the school, can use the public forum to proselytize to a captive audience. This was absolutely the right decision.

Those Persecuted American Christians

According to Mike Huckabee, that's exactly what the stimulus bill creates.

In a nutshell, he says that the Stimulus package is anti-religious because it prohibits stimulus funds going to "schools and houses of divinity." Because those churches can't survive without the government funding them.

What gets me about this is that the Christianists (to borrow a term from Andrew Sullivan) seem to not understand that it goes both ways - if the government is giving the church money, then the government gets to say how the money is spent. Keeping the money away avoids the threat of excessive government entanglement in the church. The last thing I want is the Federal Government telling me how or when to pray. If I wanted that, I'd move to Iran.

This is really just a nutshell encapsulation. For a better parsing of the situation, I recommend going to DB's post on the topic here.

More Separation of Church and State

From Lenni Brenner's book of writings from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson:

James Madison, Last Annual Message, December 3, 1816:
And I may not be allowed to add to this gratifying spectacle, that I shall read in the character of the American people, in their devotion to true liberty, and to the constitution which is its palladium, sure presages that the destined career of my country will exhibit a Government, pursuing the public good as it's (sic) object, and regulating its means by the great principles, to which they are so well allied; a Government, which watches over the purity of elections, the freedom of speech and of the press, the trial by Jury, and the equal interdict against encroachments and compacts,, between religion and the State; which maintains inviolably the maxims of public faith, (emphasis mine) the security of persons and property, and encourages, in every authorized mode, that general diffusion of knowledge which guarantees to public liberty its permanency, and to those who possess the blessing, the true enjoyment of it.
These contemplations, sweetening the remnant of my days, will animate my prayers for the happiness of my beloved Coutnry, and a perpetuity of the Institutions under which it is enjoyed.

James Madison Once Wrote

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." (from this link, which is full of great Madison lines)

The fear, of course, is that a national religion would foster a situation where the government controls the church, or vice versa. This is part of what makes America the great nation it is - people of all faiths and religious persuasions are able to gather together and appreciate their differences while knowing that they are free to believe as they wish free from the coercive effects of a national religion. Some people do not like this idea.

America is a nation founded by Christians. It is not a Christian nation. This distinction is essential for our nation to maintain what semblance of standard bearing we have left.

Using religion as a sword to attempt to wrest political gain is wrong, and the McCain campaign, who would serve as the Executive of the Government for ALL Americans, needs to not attempt to rule by division. It was not wrong to have an invocation prior to the candiate's stump in Davenport, Iowa. What was wrong was the political nature of the invocation, mixing fear of the opposing candidate and fear of "alien" religions into the fray. The invocation included the following passage: "There are plenty of people around the world who are praying to their god, be they Hindu, Buddah, or Allah, that (McCain’s) opponent wins. I pray that you step forward and honor your own name... And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day." from Andrew Sullivan). The prayer ended, "In Jesus' name." The message is clear: "Vote for McCain, because he's the Christian who will *properly* run America."

It still stuns me the weakness of faith in so many fundamental Christians that they feel they need the Government's control over their personal choice.

I am a Christian, and I want to believe as I believe, not as the Government would have me believe. My friend is a Buddhist, and I would like for him to believe as he chooses, not as the government would coerce. I want a President who can accept this.

Above the Law, for the God's Will

Pastor Gus Booth has moxie. He is a pastor at Warroad Community Church in Minnesota. He deserves praise for devoting his life to spreading the Lord's word and preaching from the Good Book.

That said, the pastor needs a lesson in humility. The United States grants tax-exempt status to churches. One of the conditions for that status is that the churches do not engage in politicking from the pulpit. Pastor Booth knows this, yet has determined that it is his place, his right, and his duty to inform his congregation in sermon that no Christian can vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. I was unaware that God was a Republican.

What's more concerning, in my mind, is that he seems to believe that not only is it his obligation, but that the good people at Americans United for Separation of Church and State operate to "intimidate" individuals such as pastor Booth into remaining silent on the issue. This is rather misguided.

Nobody is telling the pastor that he cannot have a political opinion. Nobody's telling him that he cannot share that opinion. The issue lies with pastor Booth's attempt to have his cake and eat it, too. As the top official of his church, his salary is paid by tax-exempt contributions. One of the conditions of that tax exempt status is that you do not engage in politicking. If the pastor wants to engage in politicking, then he needs to give up his tax-exempt status. If he does not want to give up the tax-exempt status, then he needs to hold his tongue. You have to take the bitter with the sweet. This protects the government and the church. Too often that dual benefit goes unrecognized, and that is unfortunate.

Freaking Activist Judges

They just have no respect for the fact that the Alabama House declared America a Christian Nation! This Louisiana Judge just blatantly ignored this non-precedent setting posturing from the state of Alabama and strikes another blow to the heart of the true believers. And how did he come to this heinous decision? Because he, and he alone (who made him judge? oh, right.) determined that the distribution of bibles in public schools is religious activity with no legitimate secular purpose. The issue stemmed from the coercive nature of the school putting pressure on a student to take religious materials even if they don't believe in that religion's teachings.

Actually, this case was decided on summary judgment based on the written briefs, so it's likely that the school district intended to lose this case and just go for the appeal. In fact, the defense attorney stated that he thinks they have a good chance of winning on appeal. Fun.

As I Have Said Before, There Will Always Be Prayer in Schools

Most people understand that. Some, even if they understand it, seem nevertheless to feel obliged to use it as a weapon for political gain. Few things in the world are more terrifying to a member of the Religious Right than an atheist, which is what makes attacks on the "attack on Christianity" a viable weapon.

Take Missouri, for example. Missouri has proposed an amendment explaining that children have the right to pray and read their Bibles. This despite the fact that there is already an amendment that does this - the First one.

I actually like the take on this that Brian Kaylor gives:
Those who self-righteously proclaim they are standing up for prayer seem to have forgotten the teachings of Jesus. As Jesus explained in his "Sermon on the Mount," we should pray in secret in our closet and not publicly like hypocrites so that all can see us.
What I like about this is that he not only understands that there is a Separation, but he actually can use the teachings of his belief to support his position and to show that Church and State can co-exist independent of each other.

The Dangerous Ones

It's not often that I read or hear about someone who has stated something that just completely befuddles me. But, I think that happened this morning as I was reading a post on Americans United For Separation of Church and State. The post links to a Chicago Tribune Article written by Eric Zorn, who was writing about some of the comments made by State Representative Monique Davis (D - Chicago) to a person on the witness stand.

The statements Monique made:

I don't know what you have against God, but some of us don't have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it's really a tragedy -- it's tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school. I don't see you fighting guns in school. You know?

I'm trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.... What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it's dangerous... It's dangerous to the progression of this state. And it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you'll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

Wow. He has no right to be here. In America? Where the People have the right under the First Amendment to petition their government for redress of their grievances.

What was Rob Sherman on the stand for? It wasn't to take prayers out of school. It wasn't to try to outlaw religion. No, it was to testify against a $1 million dollar grant intended to rebuild a Baptist Church that somehow ended up going to a private school. Obviously, he must be stopped!

This subject is covered on the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos, as well. Both the Daily Kos and Americans United has audio of her attack on Sherman.

Why is it wrong to invoke the Nazis if you are not a Conservative, but not vice-versa?

Ben Stein is stumping for his new documentary "No Intelligence Allowed." Because of this, he's been giving interviews; recently attempting to tie the Separation of Church and State with Nazism:
"I would say probably the Nazis would have found some rationale to kill the Jews without Darwinism, but Darwinism made it awfully convenient for them."

So, by way of extension, what Stein is saying, essentially, is if you oppose teaching "intelligent design (you know, the Christian creation story)" in public schools, then you must support darwinism, which is what the Nazis believe, so you must be a Nazi.

As Long as There Are Tests

There will be prayer in schools. It's not a difficult concept. What makes it difficult is the sometimes fanatical fervor some on the religious right go to in an attempt to foist their religious beliefs on those around them.

That's why when there is an article that shows at least some semblance of tolerance for the existence of other religions, it bears noting. In this case, it's a settlement following a Texas court ruling prohibiting the use of a student vote as to whether or not to have a prayer at the commencement (source: Americans United For Separation of Church and State). Judge Sam Sparks noted that the policy adopted by the school district - to hold student elections on whether or not to have a prayer at a commencement ceremony - has been ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which has ruled that schools cannot impose prayers through student elections.

This is important, though there will be many on the religious right arguing that this is somehow preventing them from being Christian. That's not the case. The ruling does not even prevent students from praying at graduation. They can pray as much as they want. They just can't have a student-led prayer, or a Christian invocation at the beginning of the commencement. In other words, Christians are still as free to practice their religion as every other religious denomination in the district is.

Some on the religious right, though, won't see it that way. Many of them have come to equate religious liberty in America as somehow being hostile towards Christianity, under what I view as some form of insecurity. That is, they need the state to sponsor their religious beliefs, lest their beliefs be wrong, and they need this to be imposed on everyone, so that those "dang heathens" can see the rightness in being Christian.

Cross-posted with additional commentary by Photog at Rambling Photos of a Life Lived.

Thomas Jefferson's Letter to Attorney General Levi Lincoln

This letter was written the same day as Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, posted directly after this post. This is also found in Lenni Brenner's book, Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church and State.

Averse to receive addresses, yet unable to prevent them, I have generally endeavored to turn them to some account, by making them the occasion, by way of answer, of sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets. The Baptist address, now enclosed, admits of a condemnation of the alliance between Church and State, under the Authority of the Constitution. It furnishes an occasion, too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings and thanksgivings, as my predecessors did (Steve's note: this was the portion in brackets that was deleted from the letter's final draft). The address, to be sure, does not point at this, and its introduction is awkward. But I foresee no opportunity of doing it more pertinently. I know it will give great offense to the New England clergy; but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them. Will you be so good as to examine the answer, and suggest any alterations which might prevent an ill effect, or promote a good one, among the people? You understand the temper of those in the North, and can weaken it, therefore, to their stomachs: it as at present seasoned to the Southern taste only. I would ask the favor of you to return it, with the address in the course of the day or evening.

Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

This is, according to those who want a greater influence of Christianity over all Americans, "the letter," the one that some assert was only intended to quell the concerns of this group, and that President Jefferson was just humoring them. I post not only the letter, to which I'm including the portion deleted [in brackets] as found in "Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church and State," by Lenni Brenner, plus, in the next post, the letter Jefferson wrote to Attorney General Levi Lincoln the same day. According to the text of Jefferson and Madison, Historians presume that Lincoln told Jefferson to delete this passage; as this is the only reference I've seen, I will leave it at Mr. Brenner's assertion, for you to believe or disbelieve as you see fit.

The affectionate Sentiments of esteem and 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 and 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 and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and 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 (sic) only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its 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, assurance of my high respect and esteem.

Pandering 101

I am a supporter of Church-State Separation. You may have been able to glean my leanings by reading the subtle nuances in my posts that suggest this. I do not subscribe to the notion that, just because many (if not most) of the Founders of America were Christian, that we are, by devise, a Christian Nation. I have read many of Jefferson and Madison's writings, and they were both very careful about what they said. Both advocated for a separation of the two, to keep the State from interfering with religion, and vice-versa. Jefferson spoke of the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans in America - not solely Christians. Even George Washington wrote of America as a nation where individuals could believe as they wished, and worship as they wished. Yet, I somewhat understand the need for some people to equate America with Christianity. I mean, I don't completely get it. I don't see how a land that is equal for all should be more equal for those who have gone through Confirmation, but perhaps that comes from a weakness in those peoples' own faith...

At any rate, when it comes to politicking with religion, it's nice to see a refreshing approach to campaigning. And there's a new one out there. Paul Abramson is the founder of Creationism.org. He has long supported Creationism over Evolution. I'm not opposed to Creationism as a religious belief, but inasmuch as I support separation of church and state because I don't believe that Hindus or Buddhists, et al. should have to learn one religious theory over any other, think it should be taught at religious institutions, and if a parent wants their child to learn only that theory, then that parent should send their child to a religious institution for his or her instruction, but I digress. Mr. Abramson has decided he's going to run for Congress. I admire that. I like it when people aspire to serve their nation. But I disagree with his platform: If elected, he would push the Public Expression of Religion Act, making public display of crosses, menorahs, nativities, etc. on public property injunction-proof. Additionally, he would introduce a bill mandating "display of the 10 Commandments in every federal courthouse in the United States and its territories."

His premise for this proposition is that America is supposed to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. I completely agree with his premise, but I think his proposed application is flawed. By mandating display of one religious doctrine over all religious doctrines rooted in this nation, then we are in effect favoring one religion over another at the best, and coercing those who believe differently into changing their beliefs at the worst. Imagine if you as a Christian were to walk into a Courthouse and the judge forced you to swear in on a Q'uran, and the sight greeting you upon entry was a giant tapestry of the Sharia. Would you feel as though you were going to get a fair judgment from the judge in your case? What if you knew that the State mandated this not only in the courthouse you visited, but in all courthouses? In all Government buildings? Would you feel free to worship as you choose?

By keeping religion free from government intrusion, we do not preclude Americans from believing in God, or in Christ or the Trinity. We instead make this country comfortable for those of all faiths to practice as they see fit.

If I were living in Abramson's district, I would vote for Brad Ellsworth, not because I don't believe in God, but because I believe my faith does not need our government's endorsement to exist.