God help America US law insists on the separation of church and state. So why does religion now govern? Gary Younge Monday August 25, 2003 The Guardian Montgomery, Alabama, is no stranger to stand-offs. The gold star embedded into the marble at the front of the state capitol marks the spot where Jefferson Davis stamped his foot and declared an independent Confederacy and where former governor George Wallace promised "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". From that very point you can make out the bus stop where Rosa Parks took her seat and the church where Martin Luther King made his stand, launching the bus boycott that sparked a decade of civil rights protest. Stand on the star today and you can witness the city's latest confrontation as the Alabama supreme court house plays host to prayer circles and television trucks in a showdown between the state's most senior judge and the country's highest court. This particular dispute is cast in stone. Two-and-a-half tonnes of granite, displaying the 10 commandments, which was placed in the rotunda of the courthouse two years ago by Alabama's chief justice, Roy Moore. The US supreme court told him to remove the monument, which violates the separation of church and state. Moore refused, saying that Christianity forms the bedrock of the American constitution and his conscience. Since the deadline passed at midnight on Wednesday, Christian activists have descended on the town from all over the country, keeping a 24-hour watch to make sure the monument is not moved and establishing phone trees to rally the faithful if it is. Many have T-shirts with slogans every bit as intolerant as the south's reputation. "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder," says one. (It is difficult to imagine how many more people you could offend on one piece of summerwear.) They appear as dotty as they do devout and determined. "What you're watching is that the socialist, communist elements are attempting to push out God from the public domain," Gene Chapman, a minister from Dallas, told the Montgomery Advertiser. Those subversive elements include the national rightwing Christian coalition and the seven southern, Republican judges. On Thursday afternoon, Moore vowed his undying opposition to the removal of the commandments; by Friday he had been suspended and his lawyers announced he was prepared to relent. Yesterday, the monument was still there and the crowds of believers kept coming, determined to martyr themselves before a lost cause. It would be easy to deride the defenders of the monument or to dismiss the whole charade as the latest illustration of the scale of degradation in America's political culture. However, Britons would do well to remove the mote in their own eye before resorting to ridicule. The only reason America can have these disputes is that it has a constitution that separates church and state (which we don't). For, while the spectacle is certainly ridiculous, its symbolism is significant. The US is at one and the same time one of the most fiercely secular and aggressively religious countries in the western world. The nation's two most sacred texts are the constitution and the Bible. And when those who interpret them disagree, the consequent confusion resonates way beyond Montgomery. This is a country where 11 states, including Alabama, refuse to give government money to students who major in theology because it would violate the constitution, and where nativity plays are not allowed in primary schools. It is also a country where, a Harris poll showed, 94% of adults believe in God, 86% believe in miracles, 89% believe in heaven, and 73% believe in the devil and hell. These two competing tendencies produce some striking contradictions. The supreme court and both houses of Congress all invoke God's blessing before they start work. But children are not allowed to say the words "under God" when they pledge allegiance to the flag at the start of school. So while there is a constitutional, albeit contested, barrier between church and state, there is almost no distinction between church and politics. Indeed, when it comes to elections, religion is the primary galvanising force and the church the central mobilising vehicle. This is one of the few truths that transcends both race and class. White evangelicals and black Protestants are the two groups most likely to say that their religion shapes their votes at least occasionally, according to a survey by the non-partisan Pew research centre. Since these two constituencies form the cornerstone of both major parties, it would be impossible for either to win an election without them and inconceivable that they could do so without the support of the church. But the influence of religion goes beyond domestic politics or social issues such as abortion and gay rights to crucial areas of foreign policy. Another Pew poll revealed that 48% of Americans think the US has had special protection from God for most of its history. Moreover, 44% believe that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people, while 36% think that "the state of Israel is a fulfilment of the biblical prophecy about the second coming of Jesus". At this point America's internal contradictions become an issue on the world stage: the nation that poses as the guardian of global secularity is itself dominated by strong fundamentalist instincts. There are two problems with this. The first is that, as became clear in Montgomery last week, there is no arguing with faith. Fundamentalists deal with absolutes. Their eternal certainties make them formidable campaigners and awful negotiators - it is difficult to cut a bargain with divine truth. The second is that America's religiosity is not something it shares with even its few western allies, let alone the many countries that oppose its current path. Yet another poll shows that among countries where people believe religion to be very important, America's views are closer to Pakistan's and Nigeria's than to France's or Germany's. These differences go all the way to the top and explain much of the reason why the tone, style, language and content of America's foreign policy has been so out of kilter with the rest of the developed world, particularly since September 11. For these fundamentalist tendencies in US diplomacy have rarely been stronger in the White House than they are today. Since George Bush gave up Jack Daniels for Jesus Christ, he has counted Jesus as his favourite philosopher. The first thing he reads in the morning is not a briefing paper but a book of evangelical mini- sermons. When it came to casting the morality play for the war on terror he went straight to the Bible and came out with evil. "He reached right into the psalms for that word," said his former speech writer, David Frum. Bush speaks in the name of the founding fathers but believes he is doing the work of the holy father. He cannot do both and condemn fundamentalism. But if he feels he must try, he might start with the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."
This article, while interesting, has many factual errors. One is that the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the removal of the monument. My understanding is that the Court merely refused to order a stay of the district court's order, which is a substantial difference. The Court could still decide to take the case up for decision on the merits, and as there are conflicting decisions in other circuits, that is a likely outcome. One can at least hope that the Court would utilize this opportunity to return to the traditional hands-off approach to state-sponsored affirmations of our religious heritiage. The Court's current approach to this issue has been an unmitigated disaster that has inflamed passions on both sides of the debate, cost local governments millions in legal fees and satisfied no one. Of course, the real problem is that the current standard dictated by Supreme Court decisions does not derive from the text of the First Amendment but rather represents an absurd extension of that language. The contemporary practice at the time the Constitution was adopted and for a couple hundred years afterwards confirms this view. The First Amendment provides simply that government(originally Congress but later extended to the states via the 14th Amendment, but that is another issue) cannot make a law "providing an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof..." There is nothing in the Constitution about a "wall between church and state" and nothing that requires every piece of government property to be a relgiious free zone. As is commonly said, the First Amendment protects religion from government, not the other way around. Personally, I understand how some people sincerely think it is a good idea for government to keep out of religion totally. I just don't think the Constitution requires it. What is so terrible about letting the voters decide these issues?
Stu - you are using juvenile part of the issue arguments and not seeing the big picture. I guess you do not even want to engage in a true debate. You try to reframe the concepts and win instead of addressing the concepts. Reactionary Liberal. What does reactionary mean anyway. If I cant call you a liberal, then you are doing a good job of pretending to be one. Have I tried to say Stu wants the country run by leftist commie satanists or something else -- well that what you did to me because you reacted to my believing in God. You cant even admit what line of thought founded this country. So I have trouble wasting anymore time on these subjects with you. You are not gving any useful information just off base rhetoric. You just understand that I could believe in God, understand right and wrong, see that fringe groups are gaining too much power. At the same time I believe that others have a right to believe what they want and vote the way they want. If the country voted to say we cant eat cows that would be fine with me. But if they snuck in a bunch of activist judges who crafted that kind of law, I would work to change the judges. Stu you just do not get it or want to debate it properly. Someday you will. You did not addresss the what line of thought founded this country with any facts or quotes. You justed restated your rhetoric which was shown to be incorect by putting the quote in context. You did not address the big "C" argument and you did not want to address the truth when I showed you other Jefferson texts. You just reaffirmed your conjecture. Here you did not address my contention that you rally cant remove religion from government because you cant define religion ending in one spot and a righteous non-religions argument begining at the next spot in the continuium. To reduce it -- Government is religion or at least it is worldview. Show me in rational, full thought how that is not true Stu. I suspect you will pick my reduced argument above and show me that a stamp with picture of a baseball is not relgious. (We all know that is not my point and I suspect you do to.) I do not even know what you are trying to say. Watch out Jem has views on how democracy works and I do not like it.
Actually, the wording of the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting[not "providing"] an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...." Of course, "respecting" means "with respect to". In other words, congress couldn't make any laws that established a national religion; eg, 'Catholicism is to be the official religion of the US.' isn't allowed. To me it reads very, very simply indeed. Joseph Story, in Commentaries on the Constitution, wrote in 1865, "probably ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation". Basically he's saying that the first amendment was never meant to prevent governmental encouragement of religion, in general, only to preven persecution of it. Again, reading the amendment, that is indeed what it seems to say. Somehow in Everson vs Board of Education the court decided that the "Establishment Clause" forbids "practices" (not only "laws", mind you, but "practices") that not only promote one religion over another but that "aid all religions". Where the hell they pulled this one from I don't know. Seems ridiculous, but I'll have to read up more on it. Nevertheless, in Lynch v Donnelly (1984), in deciding on a city's inclusion of the Nativity scene in a Christmas display, the court's opinion was, "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being''' ; finding that including the scene served a secular purpose in recognizing "''the historical origins of this traditional event long [celebrated] as a National Holiday,''. If you ask me, there's no question whatsoever that the current US legal system has undeniable roots in Christian morality (and the entire basis for the legal system's justification is, essentially, morality itself). Under that rubric, I don't see any significant qualitative difference between allowing the Nativity scene and allowing a display of the ten commandments. And yes, AAA, the "wall of separation" comes from a private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, not from the constitution or the courts.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/ __________________________________________ This organization headed by David Barton has excellent videos etc. on Americas' Godly Heritage. Tracing court decisions and other events right from the constitutional time until the present. I loaned my last copy and didn't get it back but it has references much like Alfonso referred to.
jem, Let's get one thing clear. If I put a point of view over to you it would be more impressive if you answered it directly instead of trying to pretend there is some "bigger picture" which I haven't understood. And what would that be...let me guess...a religious one I bet. You accuse me if trying to reframe concepts to win, but if that were so (although I don't try to win anything), it should be a simple job for you to show the uselessness of my argument. You haven't done so. Instead it looks as though you can't address the base issues but rather you prefer to slosh around in a set of preset notions where conclusions are already set down by your religious say so. Why do you want to call me a liberal anyway? Why do you want to call me anything rather than discuss the issues? Does this help your argument in some way? Am I to deduce from it that you wish to impart an insult? Would I be doing the same if I called you an ultra religionist? So what is the point? That you believe in a god, that you understand right and wrong, I am arguing, are separate concepts which do not depend upon each other. That a fringe group is able to sneak in a bunch of activist judges in, as you put it, is the most blatent reframing of concepts I have ever heard. I already pointed out to you it was probably a fringe group that got a few judges to back the anti slavery laws don't you think. Or is that a differnt sneaking in ! It's whether the thing they are 'sneaking in' is reasonable or not that is the question. So what do I not "get". Is it because I actually pull some strings that you would rather leave dangling untouched, strings that are so 'sacred' to you that you want them to remain hanging around as always representative of what is right and wrong for you. I addressed directly the question of what line of thought founded this country. I explained it is manifestly obvious in the Declaration of Independence how it was the clear intention that religion was to be kept away from Law. I supplied quotes, context and explanation. Your only response is to now say I didn't and that I am 'nothing more' than a reactionary liberal. Is this your only reaction to anyone who calls your precious incorrect statements about "founded on christianity" into question? I addressed the big C argument head on. If you don't like the reality of it then I suggest accusing me of reframing the concepts will not work. I brought to your attention the futility of swapping quotations. You insisted on providing more so I put them into some context. You obviously didn't feel you were getting the results you might have expected at that point, so I become a reactionary liberal at that stage I presume. Here I DO address your contention again on where religion should stop, where it stops, why it should stop and why it is not a reliable guide for right and wrong. I don't know what you mean by religious - non religious right and wrong continuum (is that the word you meant?). Right and wrong stand on their own under Law as set down by the representatives of the people. You don't NEED religion for that. That is my argument. It is also my argument that if there never had been any such thing as religion, Law would either be better than it is, or no worse than it is.. What is it that is so difficult about that? That the people want to follow religious icons or figure heads is not what Justice is or should be based upon. If the system allows abuse, the system can be changed. If judges can be planted in a bid to have them impose their beliefs upon others, whether religious beliefs or fringe group beliefs, then the Law is the only method for addressing it. That is my argument in case you missed it - you obviously did. Let's face it jem, it's seems it is you who doesn't want to debate you just want to stick to your religious preconceptions. Look at alfonso's post. The debate is not about should (or does) the Law decree a particular (christian) religion as suitable for official standards. My point is made absolutely clear again. That it must not and cannot. The debate is I would have thought, is it right under Law that any particular religion should appear to be given precedence as suitable for official standard. By the suggestion that it clearly should from the construction of a massive monument to it in a courthouse, or other similar displays of religious preference in public, I would argue is wrong and against the intentions of the Founding Fathers and most right thinking folks. The US legal system might well have undeniable roots in lots of different religious and non religious references of all sorts. The problem is there is no such entity as christian morality, which is reliable as a basis for law. But alfonso is mixing up separate values when he compares a nativity scene to a list of dubious instructions, being dispalyed as a righteous standard, but which were concocted from a book full of examples of immoral unaccountable religious edict from 'on high'.
Well, you might well think that -- wish it, even -- and yet, looking back through history, it is certainly not what the evidence suggests now, is it? Stu, again, whether you like it or not isn't the issue. You're trying to argue doctrine. But that's another debate. The simple fact that is that, on the 'forest' level, Christians do basically agree about morality, namely that it is ordained from God. That's as far as "Christian morality" needs to go with respect to the law. You say that the law doesn't "NEED" (caps and all) morality to function at the same effectiveness, give or take, as it does today. I say you're wrong. Without a BELIEF in a standard of objective rightness or wrongness -- I'm not saying that such a thing exists, only that we believe it does -- I would argue that it becomes a LOT more difficult to justify the supreme rule of law; both in its entirety, and with respect to specific (perhaps unintuitive, or "unfair") laws. But given that most Americans, most people from all walks of life, like to believe that some things are just really wrong, putting up a monument that reflects that lends undeniable historical support to the cultural tradition of American justice being based on a standard of good and bad that transcends a mere human emotional favor/distate. That's really the connection between allowing the Nativity scene -- which, on its own, has undeniable religious overtones -- on the basis of cultural and historical grounds -- you know, all but the most iconoclastic human beings identify strongly with such matters -- and allowing the, imo, the monument with the ten commandments. Just because such things raise the ire of atheists doesn't mean we (well, you, really, since I don't live in the US -- but I find the issue important) just invent laws on the fly and falsely claim they bear connection to the constitution -- when they obviously do not. That's as unfair as you can possibly get.
I would argue is wrong and against the intentions of the Founding Fathers and most right thinking folks. stu _____________________________________ And of course you are the final authority on what is "right thinking".
Thanks for correcting me, that was an embarrassing and inexcusable mistake on my part. Your quote from Story, who has a building named after him at Harvard Law School, is illuminating. In fact your entire analysis is impressive. Did you go to school in the US or is your knowledge a reflection of the fact you avoided our education system?
...now your putting wods in his mouth...he said " I WOULD ARGUE"...which is what we are all doing , thats all...his opionion ( which I disagrre with) is no more no less then yours