From : Jesse [deleted]
Sent : Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:30 PM
To : [me]
Subject : Separation, who draws the lines, and today*s issues
An Open letter to: Tom Peters, Jim Allison, and Susan Batte
Editors of the web site “Separation of Church and State Homepage”
After reading page after web page of work, I am only beginning to see
the research, understanding, and effort you have put into the “Separation
of Church and State Homepage.” Personally, I strongly appreciate the
thorough nature of your arguments and your firm grasp of the issues
surrounding the “church vs. state” controversy. Unfortunately, as I do not
have an active home internet connection, and as the janitor at the
Riverland Community College campus won’t let me spend the night in the
computer lab, I have been unable to browse your works in their entirety.
Nevertheless, having read what I was able to get my hands on, and after
doing some research of my own on both sides of the issue, I have a few
rather broad questions I would wish to field to all of you on the staff of
the “Homepage”.
Religious Expression in Politics
Separation of church and state is not found in our Constitution.
However, the idea of separation between the two does exist in the
Establishment clause. Unfortunately, many have taken the “separation”
clause too far out of context in trying to separate religious freedom and
the state. The First Amendment guarantees all Americans freedom of
religion, not freedom from religion. The lines become blurry, though, when
government officials become involved – not as judges, but as participants.
When an executive stands up to speak, many times one can safely assume
he/she is representing their organization. The question stands, though
they are representing their cause/program/business, their religious rights
have not been nullified. They are still American citizens. Does this
principle not extent to governmental officials? The President of the
United States is known as the figurehead of our nation, but that does not
mean that he cannot freely express his religion. (To proselytize through
such channels, however, is questionable, and not the topic of this
question.) Having brought that to light….
The Ten Commandments
Of the numerous court cases involving a display of the Mosaic 10
Commandments, I have not found one case in which the “separation of church
and state” is not brought to the forefront. This is troubling in light of
the fact that I cannot recall a single instance where any plaque or
monument displaying the Ten Commandments ever promoted or condemned a
specific denomination, or even any religion. Yes, the Ten Commandments
have their origins in the history of Jewish tradition, but these monuments
say nothing at all about Judaism. The Commandments’ translation through
the centuries has turned them into cultural marks portraying one ideal of
good citizenship.
Perhaps the issue is how to identify the Ten Commandments. Are these
displays expressions of America’s broad basis of legislation, cultural
diversity, and genuine pursuit of justice? Or are they malignant,
emotionally loaded displays of religious favoritism? More importantly, who
decides what they are?
Religious freedom is the cry of many opponents of the Ten Commandments.
Should a courtroom/house be considered a place of free expression of
religion? Invariably, I believe so. However, does this include the
officials and judges who work there? Judges refer to the courtroom as “my”
courtroom, the courthouse as “my” courthouse, and claim their office as
well. In light of this, cannot a judge decide what, if any, religious
symbols reside on “his” grounds?
Perhaps this whole issue is between the religious freedom of one to
express one’s self, and the freedom of another NOT to have to see such
expression. Our Bill of Rights guaranteed freedom OF religion, but did it
grant freedom FROM religion as well? And if so, what must be done with the
multitude of proselytizing religions seeking converts in our neighborhoods?
On the topic of Morality
My second question is more of a “dated” nature. Two rather “hot” topics
in the political arena of the past few months are homosexuality and
abortion. I know that the very mention of these issues immediately yields
emotionally loaded responses, but my purpose with their involvement is not
to condone or criticize either side of these issues. The problem I have
encountered in my own research and reasoning has been concerning the
involvement of government in the “rightness” or “wrongness” of these and
other issues.
I will admit I have very firm opinions concerning these particular
topics. In my [emotional] opinion, I definitely wanted governmental
intervention to “deal with” these “problems”. However, citing further
thought, I came to the inevitable question of whether government should be
touching issues such as these that have such moral backgrounds.
Morality is our right and our wrong. Without morality, a people’s
perspective on public policy is relative. Not having a code of morality
puts a society in a very dangerous position. Imagine a well-meaning
citizen exclaiming, “That doesn’t apply to me because I believe that
killing people is how one should find favor with cosmic beings – that’s
what is right for me.” Now, yes that does sound preposterous, but so does
a relativistic society. Ultimately, a society must decide on an agreeable
form of government for persons to co-exist – a civil morality. At the very
least, the citizens must then live in moral integrity in light of the
regulations their government puts forth. The question, then, is when does
a law traverse the line dividing religious morality from civil morality?
Who is to distinguish moral issues from “safe” ones?
I would also be interested in your opinion of David Barton’s
Declaration of Independence thesis. In his book, Original Intent, he
explains how our Founding Fathers listed the Declaration as a moral
document while the Constitution was its supplement. Barton refers to the
relationship between the two by metaphorically identifying the Declaration
of Independence as the “Articles of Incorporation,” which call an entity
into existence, and the Constitution as the “By-Laws,” explanations of how
that entity is to be governed. Though I feel the evidence he supplies is
not quite sufficient to prove this type of relationship, he brings up a
very real point that seems to fit other research I have come across. Do
you have any response to his claim?
Thank you for your willingness to be open about these questions. I
sincerely hope these serve only to promote the study and understanding of
the church-state controversy.
Jesse [deleted]
College Student
[deleted]
P.S.: I have outlined some of my thoughts in a 14-page essay, which, if
requested, I would be delighted to forward. Due to its size (68k), I did
not include it in this exploratory message.
********************************************************************************
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
**************************************************
.
|
