My fellow sub blogger, Doc McDonald, has, I think, some interesting views regarding the separation of Church and state. I happen to vehemently disagree with them. The discussion that started it is
here, with a synopsis of a longer reply I intend to place in this post.
My summary post was this.
My problem with this line of thinking is that somehow, intolerance of Christians and Christianity is no problem. Nearly all Christians will bend over backward to show tolerance and respect for people who practice their religions (even atheism) peacefully. If Christians were so hell-bent on forcing their theology down the throats of all non-believers, why is it that Israel seems to have no stronger defender than Evanegelicals? Is it because Christians make up so much of a majority of relgious people in this country that you fear they are only steps away from creating a theocracy, despite over 230 years of proof to the contrary?
Your response centers mostly on the issue of prayer, and publicly-sanctioned prayer. So, for the record, as a Christian, in the public square, I see NO need to have the government sanction prayer. Furthermore, I don't really WANT the government to sanction prayer. However, I also see no need to have the government, in the interest of serving the minority or political correctness, BAN prayer. I see room for compromise in a civil society, wheer we could agree, for example, that it is acceptable to start the school day with a 1 or 2 minute "moment of silence" or "contemplation." Then all those that choose to use that moment to pray to a God of their choosing should be able to do so. Those that choose not to, well, I'd ask them to be respectful of the others and use it for their own contemplation (or take a nap, or pick their nose, or whatever). There was a time when we recognized that Faith was a very personal and important thing to many people, yet, I can understand how those that consider themselves "rationalists" scoff at those of Faith, and I wonder how much of that condescension sinks into the consciousness of those people.
Finally, you state in your reply that because the Constitution provides Freedom "of" Religion, it also, therefore, guarantees, Freedom "from" Religion. However, this is a very 9th Circuit kind of interpretation of the 1st Amendment, and one which I, and many Constitutional Scholars, reject. I do believe that in a civilized society, you have the right to reject religion, and not be forced to participate in religious ceremonies, nor should the state compel you to do so. We might actually have honest agreements on what you consider "forced," and we can certainly debate those. As a matter of fact, I will place a point-for-point rebuttal to your detailed reply on my blog, but, for this is the summary.
However, I chose to take his reply bit by bit, my comments are in BOLD interspersed with Doc's comments.
Let me substitute the word "Christian" for Catholic - a religion which was part of my past, and one, therefore, that to me, is a familiar synonym for Christian.
"First, when a student who does not believe as Christians do, be it a Muslim, a Jew, an Atheist, etc. is forced to listen to a Christian prayer in a public setting such as school, he or she is forced to participate at gun point."
1. Are you implying that when a Christian Prayer is allowed in a school, the state uses it's police power to force others to participate, like the tax system? I think you stretch that point a tad, as your next sentence seems to admit.
2. It's amazing to me that for how hard objectivists and atheists preach individuality, they would consider that non-Christian kids are so obsequious that they will go along with a prayer to a God they either don't believe exists, or in whom they don't believe. If my kids were Jewish, Atheists, Muslim, Objectivists, Scientologists, Whateverists, I would explain to them that in those moments of "public" prayer to a God that either doesn't exists, or that they don't acknowledge, to spend a couple of moments either a)praying to your God, or b)picking your nose, or c)laughing at the sheep, or d)allowing those believers their few moments to pray and show some respect for their heartfelt faith.
3. I realize that somewhere in this country we have become so obsessed with the rights of the minority that we have become a tyranny of the minority.
"Granted, no one can force them to pray, but they are forced to "pretend" they are praying, giving the illusion that "everybody does it"; therefore, it's the right thing to do."
Silently respecting the desires of the majority does not diminish your own beliefs. In fact, I think it identifies you as a thoughtful, conscientious human being.
What would happen to a student who just got up and went about his or her business during this "moment"?
I think he would be immediately identified as a non-believer. Is that such a bad thing? I would challenge these students to have the courage of their (parents') convictions.
"What would your reaction be if a school official penalized a child of yours for praying in an obvious manner during a break in the classroom routine?"
It's been said that as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in school. I would be upset if this happened, certainly. But, I think there is room in our society for tolerance.
What would a "Christian's reaction be if suddenly, ALL students had to kneel on "prayer blankets", face the east and recite a Muslim prayer?
I can't tell you what your generic "Christian's" reaction would be, only mine. If all students HAD to kneel and face Mecca, I would find that offensive and Unconstitutional. However, if that payer were optional, I would have no problem with it, and I would instruct my kids to pray in their own manner or do nothing, but be respectful of the religious beliefs of those Muslim kids. If this event, though, was disruptive of the school day, I might also protest it. But, let's assume for argument that you live in a school district that is 50% Muslim, and that the school's schedule is arranged so that there is time allotted for a traditional Muslim prayer say around the lunch period. If that community decided they wanted to allot that time for (insert euphemism for prayer here), I would tell me kids, use that time for your own purposes.
How about a simple Jewish prayer - although one really wouldn't know the difference by the words, one would "feel" the difference in knowing it came from a Jewish text.
Since a Jewish prayer would probably be in Hebrew, we'd likely know the difference. But, asked and answered.
The only difference is in the activity or the source that has been sanctioned, and who decides what to sanction? Me? You? Hardly. To pray or not to pray, that is the question.
If that IS the question, then the answer seems to be, in many states, "To pray." Because nearly all organized religions pray, then the setting aside of a few moments of our public lives to pray would not seem a terrible imposition on society, were that what society (in the form of our elected leaders) decided. Why don't we attempt to let people govern themselves locally?
What to pray and how to pray, that is the other question. To live free or die, that is the imperative our founding fathers left for us to follow.
What to pray, and how to pray, is left to the pray-er. During the time of prayer, or silence, or contemplation, I leave it to the non-believer to come up with what to do. I trust they can make good use of the time, without resorting to disrespectful activity.
Prayer has NOTHING to do with a public school curriculum or any other activity, unless one is enrolled in a religious school or attending a religious event. Would you wear Bermuda shorts to a formal dinner or feel comfortable dressed that way at such an affair?
A red herring. Should our leaders choose to make it part of the curriculum, it becomes part of the curriculum. We have legislative bodies at many different levels in this country (I propose that such decisions, like most government decisions, are best decided closest to the governed, let's posit in this case, the local school board) and those that oppose are welcome to challenge those leaders at the ballot box, but, as in many things, I find it obnoxious that they would use the power of the courts to obtain what they can't do legislatively. As to your Red Herring question, if the custom became Bermuda Shorts, or the host(s) requested Bermuda Shorts, I would dutifully comply with the wishes of my hosts, or not attend, as would be my prerogative.
The gun holder, of course, is the authority representing the school, i.e. the local and the federal governments. They hold a power over students that require conformity or penalty.
The problem here is the non sequitur that there is a penalty for non-compliance. Perhaps there should be a penalty for disruption, but not for compliance. I think certainly to impel people to comply would be wrong, and should not be sanctioned. The force of peer pressure, or of weakness, is not analogous to forced compulsion.
An invocation at a public ceremony: swearing in ceremony, swearing to tell the truth with a hand on a bible - a book that is absolutely meaningless to an atheist, but serves as a symbol or "depth" to Christians.
Here, I agree with you. I find it unnecessary that anyone be required to take an oath on the Bible (in fact, I believe in most states, even here in Georgia, witnesses are no longer sworn to Truth using a Bible). However, I think anyone that wants to use the Bible (or the Qu'ran) to demonstrate their fealty to the Truth during a swearing in or affirmation, should be permitted to do so, public ceremony or not.
The United States Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, and therefore, freedom FROM religion.
Another non sequitur. While some WANT and desire to believe this (most serving on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a handful on the Supreme Court), it is not what the founders intended.
In order to afford the same opportunity to each group, religion is appropriate in a religious setting; it is not appropriate in a public or civil setting where people of disparate beliefs may gather for a purpose other than religion - a State of the Union message, a swearing into office ceremony, a graduation ceremony and so on.
I think that's open for debate. I vote for Federalism on this one.
I could go on, but that wasn't the point. The point was that one could accomplish all of these things and more without the imposition of government force. Atheists do not come into your place of worship and demand you include even brief secular discussions about the advantages of a life of reason vs a life that contains elements of "the willful and blind acceptance of the improvable and the unknowable".
We're not talking about my place of worship. We're talking about the public sphere, where, unfortunately, secularists (whether they're atheists or well-intentioned religionists) ARE demanding that the public schools teach children philosophies and doctrines that are anathema to Christians (things like the acceptability of gay marriage, the acceptability of "alternative families, the promotion of promiscuity, the re-writing of American History, etc), while these things do little to further the educational experience of our kids.
So, what gives people the right to force those of us who choose to live according to the world as it is, to instead accept and to live in the same manner as those whose faith demands otherwise?
I don't believe that anyone is asking those who "choose to live according to the world as it is" to live in any specific manner. You're free to choose your own way. Even if you were a Christian, free will provides you the means to behave as you are compelled. The only difference is that the Christian will answer for his deeds to a higher power someday in some way, the non-believer believes he will not.
We each have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I spent 20 years of my life protecting those rights and would reluctantly, but willingly die to protect your right to worship. What are you willing to do to protect my right to be left alone when it comes to matters of religion?
I too would die reluctantly protecting anyone else's rights (I think Patton addressed this the best), but, like you, I would die willingly.
I am sorry that non-religious people seem to feel assaulted or offended by the majority in this country. However, I don't need to DO anything special to protect your right to be left alone, as that right already exists. In this entire opus, other than stating a distaste for public prayer (which I addressed ad nauseum), I am not sure where religion is encroaching on your right to be left alone. If you have specific other areas you'd like to point to where religion is impacting your right to be left alone, I'd like the opportunity to address them.
