http://www.tuftsdaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/09/27/4338b2202fc17
Published September 27, 2005
No freedom of religion without freedom from government promoted religion
By Samuel Kounaves
In a recent viewpoint entitled "Under God Phrase Should Remain" [Tufts
Daily, 9/21/05] several arguments were advanced as to why that should be
the case. The problem is that the author missed the most important and
legally valid one as to why "under God," along with our new motto "In God
We Trust" (replacing the original E Pluribus Unum), cannot stand if we are
to have true freedom of belief.
Of course it's historically true that the Pilgrims were Christians and that
many of the founders were religious. It's also true that religion is
intricately woven into the fabric of this country. Those, however, are not
the salient points. Historical precedent does not inevitably translate into
law or justify a wide spread practice. It's historically true that during
the first century of our nation, women had few rights and African Americans
none. It is also true that the "majority" of Americans condoned these
practices.
Clearly, a majority opinion does not always produce just laws. I believe
the Constitution was written based on the ideals of establishing justice
and securing liberty, not to promulgate history, but to insure that the
lessons of the old world were not repeated in the new. It was written to
ensure that certain inalienable rights were not trampled by the tyranny of
the majority.
The Constitution is the law of the land. The First Amendment clearly states
that, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of
religion." In Jefferson's own words, "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." This phrase was used several times by
Jefferson and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as an accurate description
of the "Establishment Clause," to which first phrase of the First Amendment
is referred.
In 1954 Congress passed a bill, and President Eisenhower signed it into
law, inserting "under God" in the Pledge. By doing this, our government in
effect established and promoted the "opinion" that there exists a singular
deity that we are all under. This is a specific belief. It is an opinion.
It is in conflict with beliefs that accept multiple deities or none at all.
It's the same as saying one Nation under Zeus, or Allah, or Krishna.
What else does the First Amendment prohibit if not Congress placing a
specific system of belief above others? By what right did Congress alter
the Pledge and our motto to make a specific theological statement? In my
opinion, if the First Amendment means anything, it means exactly that
Congress cannot pass laws that establish or promote one system of belief
over others. How many Americans would answers yes to the question: do you
think our government should promote a specific religious belief over
others? This is exactly what adding "under God" or "In God We Trust" to
national "symbols" does. They are government endorsements of a specific
belief.
Americans are free to believe and free not to believe. They are free to
exercise their rights at home, in houses of worship, or in the public
square. On the other hand, our government and its officials represent all
the people, and as such cannot favor one system of beliefs over others. No
American should have to sit quietly by while a government official in a
governmental process leads others in making a statement containing an
affirmation of a religious nature. It is wrong. Government must be a
neutral place where we can all gather as equals. A legislative body cannot
codify a theological concept and claim that it is not promoting or
establishing it.
In its simplest form, the First Amendment means exactly what Jefferson
stated - "the separation of church and state" - that religious institutions
do not control government, its officials, or require government to enforce
their religious codes. Likewise, government and its officials do not
interfere with the practices and beliefs of religious institutions or
individuals (barring criminal acts), or support, sponsor, or promulgate
religious beliefs.
If we are a free and just democracy, where respect of minority rights
exists, there can be no "freedom of religion" without freedom from
government-promoted religion.
Samuel Kounaves is a Professor in the Department of Chemistry and Associate
Director of the Massachusetts Chapter of Americans United for Separation of
Church & State.
No freedom of religion without freedom from government promoted religion
Post your
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
