The public at large is quite comfortable with President Bush's
evocation of faith and what many perceive as his reliance on religious
beliefs in making policy decisions. A 62% majority thinks Bush strikes
the right balance in how much he mentions his religious faith, and
nearly as many (58%) believe the president's reliance on religion in
policymaking is appropriate. Yet in spite of the widespread acceptance
of politicians =AD and the president in particular =AD referencing
religion in their speeches and political decisions, many Americans
express a general discomfort when exposed to actual religious
statements by various politicians.
Is it no wonder that people question the argument that we have total
separation of church and state. When a religious group can take credit
for electing a president and a pope can collaborate with a president of
the United States and the world's most secret intelligence agency to
bring down the government of another nation, it can become confusing.
Per the U.S. Supreme Court (1947):
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs
or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any
amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious
activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever
from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor
the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the
words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law
was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."
The "total separation of church and state" ensures
that we as Americans have the right to worship (or not, as the case may
be) whatever religion(s) that we want to without any interference or
coercion from the government and government officials.
"The [religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased
by the total separation of the church from the state."
- James "Father of the Constitution" Madison
"Total Separation" of church and state? It may be more like total
unification of church and state.The majority of people who support the
Constitutional separation of church and state are not 'securlarists'
but instead people of faith. And religion is almost always involved in
government in one way or another.
And it can be expensive for taxpayers.First Amendment guarantees
government neutrality on religious matters, a "separation" of church
and state. While it was common in the early days of the American
colonies to tax citizens to pay for churches and clergy, such practices
were seen to undermine religious freedom and were eventually abandoned.
Donating one's money to a house of worship should be an individual
choice. Therefore our constitutional and democratic principles mandate
that such contributions be voluntary.
When the government uses the state treasury to write checks to be
delivered to religious schools, directly or by action of parents who
transfer the "vouchers" themselves, taxpayers are burdened with paying
for religion, whether they agree with the religious mission of a
particular school or not. Naturally, supporters of church-state
separation see vouchers in direct conflict with the First Amendment.
Private religious schools are what the Supreme Court labels
"pervasively sectarian." In other words, religion permeates every
aspect of the school and its curriculum. Unlike private universities,
which often have historical ties to a religious denomination, private
religious elementary and secondary schools are academic extensions of
the house of worship with which they are affiliated.
Also, again the line between church and state is sometimes unclear, and
many who support the Consitutional separation of church and state fear
that those who wish to undermine said separation will use anything they
can to open the 'door' to do so. Said fear is not without a
well-founded basis - consider, for example, what House Majority Leader
Tom Delay has to say about Bush's "faith-based" initiatives:
"I know there are some people that are worried about the faith-based
initiative that the president supports... But I see it as a great
opportunity to bring God back into the public institutions of the
country... You see, I don't believe there is a separation of church
and state."
- House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), July 10, 2001
The government is expected by its constituents to spend public funds in
a wise and effective fashion. The state's money, it is frequently
noted, is the taxpayers' money, and as such, we demand accountability.
Under these circumstances it becomes increasingly difficult for a
religious body to be asking for money with one hand while trying to
sever the attaching strings with the other.
Let us prey.
-----------------
.
|
