Separation of Church and State Goes Two Ways
Don A. Bright
I was raised as a Christian. I guess today I would have to put my self in the category of an agnostic. Before I go any further with that assessment I must explain what defines agnosticism in my mind. Max Otto, an American philosopher (1876-1968) and professor emeritus at The University of Wisconsin at Madison, once made this statement: (and I won’t use quotes here since I am operating from memory) An atheist is one who has a belief in the nonexistence of God; an agnostic is one who has a non-belief in the existence of God. I therefore put an agnostic on the side of potential belief while an atheist has quit seeking any clarification of his beliefs.
Having said that, I intend to tackle here a very complex and uncomfortable paradigm that has evolved over many years in our political discourse. Far be it from me to consider myself worthy of making any dent in the question of the paramount dispute over church and state, but I hope here to provide a little more fodder for that discussion.
Much agonizing is currently extant by persons on each side of the issue. There seems to be one side whose hope (and I prefer the word hope over belief since in this case so much of the debate is a manifestation of political needs) is that the “separation” alluded to in the Constitution means separation of church from state and another side whose hope is for separation of state from church.
Frequently the two are so intermingled that the line does blur. From my troublesome but distant position as an agnostic I feel I can see the division more clearly and unemotionally. However, that may be a little wishful thinking on my part. At any length here is my offering to the debate.
I am also a conservative and a firm believer in the
greatness of our Constitution and therefore prefer strict adherence to its
words. Our first right in the bill of rights provides – among other things—that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...”.
I think the most important phrase above is “establishment of (a) religion”
(for better illustration I have inserted the letter “a”). It is quite evident
that the state can not “establish” a state controlled religion and not be at the
same time guilty of “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” any religion. And
that is the point at which I disagree with some of my conservative friends.
Since the removal of Christian prayers from our schools in 1963 and subsequent attempts, mostly successful, to remove religious symbolisms in other “public” (and a discussion of the abuse of the designation of “public” will occur later in this document) areas there has been a concerted effort to reinstall what has been banned.
While I think there has been a little paranoia and a lot of hatred shown by the anti-establishment side, I must agree with their basic stance. We must not have the government even promoting, let alone establishing one belief over another belief.
I don’t think many people of the Christian faith realize the significance of their desire to establish this as a Christian nation even if our founders, founding documents, and current government practices our replete with references to Christianity. To believe that this is a Christian nation based on the facts above is contradictory to any belief in freedom of religion.
After our recent elections and the surfacing of the “values” issues a lot of people are lumping religion and “values” together as if they were the same thing. I think they are not. (See my essay, “Are We Talking Morals or Values”)
When liberals accuse conservatives of being “religious” because they vote for cultural values they are guilty of pure stereotyping. They are wrong to think that Christians are trying to impose their religion on the rest of the nation when Christians speak against the "values" of others or vote for their own “values”.
As a strict adherent to our Constitution and believer in a very small role for government I recognize that we must keep the state from any religious activity. It is not, as I understand the Constitution, within its Constitutionally granted powers for the government to engage in promoting or banning any religion on it’s turf.
And that brings me to the definition of just what counts as
government “turf”. There have very damaging results to our freedoms because we
have allowed the government too much illegal discretion in defining what is
considered “public” property. It is my opinion that one bad manifestation of
our failure to fight these government usurpations of our property is that it
now, by this disingenuous action, can involve itself in religion by banning it
from private property. This is a distinct violation of not only the first
amendment but also the fifth amendment of our Constitution. Christians (or any
other religion for that matter) are right when they complain about a visual
display of their religion on property the government claims but is in reality
property belonging to the individual or group involved in that religion.
When it comes to prayer in our schools (which, unfortunately, are on "public"
ground there is ample reason for government not encourage this activity since
more time would be spent praying than learning (which might not be so bad) if
all religions were allowed their time out to pray. The only way to avoid
this is for government to select, and therefore "establish" one or more
religions to the disadvantage of others.
The recent activities like not allowing any historic documents, real historic events historic backgrounds of religion of any religion and real historic literature and art to be taught or even allowed on the school premises is not dictated by the first Amendment establishment clause but rather by adequate learning practices. The practice of banning these necessary teaching tools violates the second clause of the first amendment, "... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;". In addition to that it is a childlike exaggeration of the establishment clause.
When Christians demand the promotion or practice of their religion on true “public” holdings they are wrong. Likewise when others demand the removal of religious artifacts from real private property because it can be seen from the “common grounds” and therefore considered part of the "public" domain is equally as wrong.