buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

Separation of Church and State:
A Most Important Decision

By Gerald A. Larue
Emeritus Professor of Biblical History and Archaeology
University of Southern California
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/WhitePapers/separation_church_state.htm
________________________________________________________

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

These words, which were ratified in December, 1791, form the opening of the
Federal Constitution's first Amendment, and comprise what is known as the
"establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause." The language
reflects the founding fathers' deep concerns for individual liberty—a
concern that grew out of awareness of English and European edicts that
often had imposed on the general populace religious beliefs and morality
that had to be adhered to on pain of punishment. The commitments to
freedom, which were to become part of the development of what was, for
Europeans, "the new world," were not won easily.

The author does not directly acknowledge the the fact that the First
Amendment restrains only the lawmaking Power of Congress, and does not
touch that of the States. The First Amendment guarantees only that a
single set of religious beliefs and morality will not be imposed on the
general populace, but it does not guarantee that the States can not do
the same.

(As this appears to be a discussion of what the Founding Fathers
intended by ratifying the First Amendment, only the plain meaning of the
First Amendment is relevant while the Fourteenth Amendment is entirely
irrelevant.)

The author also does not discuss the implications of the fact that
several States had in some way established religion at the time of
ratification of the First Amendment. That is, some States had taken to
supporting or encouraging a particular system of religious belief over
others. The use of the indefinite article an in "an establishment of
religion" suggests a reference to those existing establishments of
religion, or to any that may one day come to be.

The First Amendment, as its words plainly convey, and as the general
principle of the Constitution made explicit by the Tenth would allow,
was meant to protect the power of the States to establish religion and
ultimately of the right of the people to their own government. The
First Amendment was ultimately an expression of the intended form of
government, namely that the Power to make such laws as were being
prohibited the general government was retained by the States, as such
Power was recognized as belonging to any sovereign.

The study of American history makes it clear that those who came from
Europe did not come religiously unencumbered. Nor did they always bring
with them a religious tolerance that would admit the validity of other
similar, but different, faith systems. If, perhaps, those whose religious
history included memories of persecution under tyrannical state-endorsed
religious systems entertained some interest in supporting the formation of
a governing system whereby no single religion could ever ally itself with
government to enforce any single dogma, that concern was seldom evident.
Madison’s Concern

The importance of the separation of church and state became clear to James
Madison who has often been called, "Father of the Constitution." In June,
1785, Madison opposed a bill sponsored by Patrick Henry that would have
placed a tax on all Virginians for the nondiscriminatory support of
religion—that is, each taxpayer might designate the church to which his tax
money would go. The taxes of the nonreligious would be used to support
secular education. Madison's broadside, titled "Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments," was published in Alexandria and quickly
spread. He wrote, in part:

Religion can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or
violence. The religion, then, of every man, must be left to the conviction
and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise
it as these may dictate. In matters of religion no man's right is abridged
by the institution of civil society; and religion is wholly exempt from its
cognizance . . .

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity,
in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any
particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That the
same authority that can call for each citizen to contribute three pence
only of his property for the support of only one establishment, may force
him to conform to any other establishment, in all cases whatsoever?

If "all men by nature are equally free and independent," they are to be
considered as retaining an "equal right to free exercise of religion,
according to dictates of conscience." While we assert for ourselves a
freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the religion which we
believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those
whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us...

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of
maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had contrary
operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all
places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the
laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. Enquire of the
teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest
lustre; those of every sect point to the ages prior to incorporation with
civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive state, in which its
teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks; many of them
predict its downfall...

What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil
society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny
on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been
seen the guardians of liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert
the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it,
needs them not.
Religious Liberty and Free Society

It was out of a combination of deism and reason that recognition of the
importance of a free society was to emerge—a society composed of a free
people who could not be compelled to accept or to live by any given set of
religious beliefs. According to historian Henry Steele Commager, the
decision was "perhaps the most important decision reached in the New World.
Everywhere in the western world of the eighteenth century, church and state
were one; and everywhere the state maintained the established church and
tried to force conformity to its dogma." As a consequence of that decision,
Commager notes: "Thus the United States took the lead among the nations of
the earth in the establishment of religious freedom. That is one reason
America has never had any religious wars or religious persecutions."

The Amendment provides for freedom from any religion as well as freedom of
religion. This means that Americans are free to belong to the religious
organization of their choice, thereby rejecting the claims of any other
faith system. Simultaneously, they are free from the need to accept
another's beliefs. At the same time, they are free to create new religions,
thereby rejecting all other established religions. They are also free to
choose not to belong to or believe in any religion. No matter what the
choice, each and every American maintains full status as a citizen. These
rights have been widely recognized and acclaimed, not only by those in the
legal profession, but also by Protestant and, on occasion, Roman Catholic
churches.

For example, the American Baptist Churches have had a long history
supporting individual human rights. In a Policy Statement on Human Rights
adopted by the General Board of the American Baptist Churches in December,
1976, it was stated that:

Baptist history is rooted in concern for conscience and freedom for persons
to believe, to choose, to live unregimented, whether by religious dogma and
institution or by social and political structures. John Bunyan in prison
and Roger Williams driven from Massachusetts, reflect commitment to these
ideas, as did Martin Luther King, in his witness to human dignity and the
rights of minority groups. Resolutions by the American Baptist Churches
over the years have particularly sought to reflect the denomination's basic
principles of freedom of thought and belief, the right of dissent, and the
responsibility to speak prophetically to church and society and support
human dignity and social justice.

As the report continues, the first statement relates to freedom of and
freedom from religion:

As American Baptists we declare the following rights to be basic human
rights, and we will support programs and measures to assure these rights:
1. The right of every person to choose a religion freely, to
maintain religious belief or unbelief without coercion; the right for
communities of faith to meet together to engage in public worship, to
witness publicly to others, to speak prophetically from religious
conviction to government and society, to live out religious beliefs, and to
be free from governmental intrusion, coercion, and control in the free
exercise of conscience and religion . . .

It is important to note that the Resolution recognizes the rights of
persons who endorse "unbelief" in religion as a basis for life. The rights
that the resolution claims for those who "maintain religious belief" are
the same rights afforded to those who choose not to maintain such beliefs.

On May 26, 1988, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin addressed the Center for
Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago Hospital. His subject was
"Euthanasia: Ethical and Legal Challenge." He began his address as follows:

One of the hallmarks of our democratic system of government and our social
environment here in the United States is the fact that a plurality of views
informs our public discourse regarding fundamental human questions. At
times, these views flow from religious beliefs. At other times, they derive
from philosophical or pragmatic judgments about the meaning and purpose of
life.

This pluralism is the result of the free speech accorded by the
Constitution to each citizen as well as the right both to freely exercise
one's religion and to practice no religion. (italics his). But this
constitutionally protected pluralism has not been bought at the price of
excluding religious or moral values from the public life of the nation. On
the contrary, the goal of the American system has been to provide space for
moral or religious substance in our society.

Indeed, in our pluralistic society we must decide how those who have such
beliefs or ethical principles may appropriately participate in the
development of public policy. In my view, positions that are informed by
particular religious beliefs or philosophical assumptions need to be
translated into commonly agreed upon language, arguments, and categories
before they can become the moral or ethical foundations for key public
policy choices.

As one might expect, Cardinal Bernardin's guiding principles will be
derived from his Roman Catholic faith. However, the Cardinal, like those of
the Baptist faith, recognized and acknowledged the rights of others to
accept no religion and to base their guiding principles on a philosophy or
on philosophies. This idea has important overtones regarding the
responsibilities of both government and education.
"Jefferson’s Wall"

Because the government may not engage in the promotion or endorsement of
any particular belief system, it is automatically required by law to honor
and respect all of the varying forms of belief and non-belief expressed by
the people. What the First Amendment created was, in the words of Thomas
Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association,
"a wall of separation between church and state." The protections of freedom
guaranteed by this wall of separation include both the individual right to
free choice and to privacy of choice. That is to say that not only is the
individual free to make a personal choice regarding belief or disbelief in
any or all religions, but that the person cannot be required to disclose
that choice or have that choice used against him or her as a basis for
discrimination. We are all equal under the law of the land, no matter in
what we choose to believe or disbelieve. This concept was reinforced in
Justice Black's decision in the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case:

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 form 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 organization 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 "wall" that was erected pertains not only to the establishment of a
religion, but also to the establishment of religious codes of morality. For
example, a given religion may believe that divorce is acceptable only on
the grounds of adultery. Civil codes cannot be limited by what that
particular religion accepts as right and proper. Civil morality must be
secular morality, which is to say that the acceptable reasons for legal
divorce cannot be restricted by what a religious group claims to be proper.
Therefore legal divorce becomes possible on other grounds ranging from
incompatibility to infidelity. Any given religious organization may have
its own grounds for acknowledging the divorce, but that policy remains
within the faith system and has no legitimacy or significance for the
general populace.

Some religious groups may condemn homosexuality on the basis of an
interpretation of what is, for them, authoritative or revealed divine
commands. Other religious groups, using the same sources, may provide a
different interpretation that accepts homosexuality. For example, the
Metropolitan Community Churches are Christian churches whose membership is
composed largely of Christian homosexuals. Governments may not pass
legislation based solely on religious morality; and although legislation
may be cognizant of the varying belief systems, the legislation must
embrace the social, political and personal rights of all people, including
homosexuals. In other words, civil laws that formulate communal moral and
ethical standards must be secular—not derived solely from a religious
belief system.
Teaching about Ultimate Beliefs

It is both inappropriate and illegal for any public school or any public
school teacher to propagate or to endorse in any way the concepts or dogmas
associated with any specific religion or belief system. Although the
teaching and promulgation of a particular faith system is accepted as
appropriate in educational institutions founded and funded as private
religious organizations, it is both inappropriate and illegal for any
public school or any public school teacher to propagate or to endorse in
any way the concepts or dogmas associated with any specific religion or
belief system. However, in courses where teaching about religion is
authorized by the state educational system, it is proper and it is legal to
teach about religions.

Teaching about religions automatically includes recognition of the rights
of people living in a free society to choose between the various faith
systems as well as their right to reject any one or all of such faith
systems. Teaching about religions requires the recognition of the
legitimacy of lives lived according to varying belief systems as well as
the legitimacy of lives committed to a nonreligious life style. That is to
say, that teaching about religions must include teaching about the beliefs
of those who reject a religion or religions.

March 19, 2003
Instruction Systems grants the right to freely duplicate this essay for
educational purposes.


***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . 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)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

Separation of Church and State:
A Most Important Decision

By Gerald A. Larue
Emeritus Professor of Biblical History and Archaeology
University of Southern California
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/WhitePapers/separation_church_state.htm

________________________________________________________

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
These words, which were ratified in December, 1791, form the opening
of the
Federal Constitution's first Amendment, and comprise what is known as the
"establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause." The language
reflects the founding fathers' deep concerns for individual liberty—a
concern that grew out of awareness of English and European edicts that
often had imposed on the general populace religious beliefs and morality
that had to be adhered to on pain of punishment. The commitments to
freedom, which were to become part of the development of what was, for
Europeans, "the new world," were not won easily.

The author does not directly acknowledge the the fact that the First
Amendment restrains only the lawmaking Power of Congress, and does not
touch that of the States. The First Amendment guarantees only that a
single set of religious beliefs and morality will not be imposed on the
general populace, but it does not guarantee that the States can not do
the same.

(As this appears to be a discussion of what the Founding Fathers
intended by ratifying the First Amendment, only the plain meaning of the
First Amendment is relevant while the Fourteenth Amendment is entirely
irrelevant.)

The author also does not discuss the implications of the fact that
several States had in some way established religion at the time of
ratification of the First Amendment. That is, some States had taken to
supporting or encouraging a particular system of religious belief over
others. The use of the indefinite article an in "an establishment of
religion" suggests a reference to those existing establishments of
religion, or to any that may one day come to be.

The First Amendment, as its words plainly convey, and as the general
principle of the Constitution made explicit by the Tenth would allow,
was meant to protect the power of the States to establish religion and
ultimately of the right of the people to their own government. The
First Amendment was ultimately an expression of the intended form of
government, namely that the Power to make such laws as were being
prohibited the general government was retained by the States, as such
Power was recognized as belonging to any sovereign.

The study of American history makes it clear that those who came from
Europe did not come religiously unencumbered. Nor did they always bring
with them a religious tolerance that would admit the validity of other
similar, but different, faith systems. If, perhaps, those whose religious
history included memories of persecution under tyrannical state-endorsed
religious systems entertained some interest in supporting the
formation of
a governing system whereby no single religion could ever ally itself with
government to enforce any single dogma, that concern was seldom evident.
Madison’s Concern

The importance of the separation of church and state became clear to
James
Madison who has often been called, "Father of the Constitution." In June,
1785, Madison opposed a bill sponsored by Patrick Henry that would have
placed a tax on all Virginians for the nondiscriminatory support of
religion—that is, each taxpayer might designate the church to which
his tax
money would go. The taxes of the nonreligious would be used to support
secular education. Madison's broadside, titled "Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments," was published in Alexandria and quickly
spread. He wrote, in part:

Religion can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or
violence. The religion, then, of every man, must be left to the
conviction
and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise
it as these may dictate. In matters of religion no man's right is
abridged
by the institution of civil society; and religion is wholly exempt
from its
cognizance . . .

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish
Christianity,
in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same
ease, any
particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That the
same authority that can call for each citizen to contribute three pence
only of his property for the support of only one establishment, may force
him to conform to any other establishment, in all cases whatsoever?

If "all men by nature are equally free and independent," they are to be
considered as retaining an "equal right to free exercise of religion,
according to dictates of conscience." While we assert for ourselves a
freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the religion which we
believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those
whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced
us...

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of
maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had contrary
operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less,
in all
places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the
laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. Enquire of the
teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its
greatest
lustre; those of every sect point to the ages prior to incorporation with
civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive state, in which its
teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks; many of them
predict its downfall...

What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil
society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual
tyranny
on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen
upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been
seen the guardians of liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert
the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it,
needs them not.
Religious Liberty and Free Society

It was out of a combination of deism and reason that recognition of the
importance of a free society was to emerge—a society composed of a free
people who could not be compelled to accept or to live by any given
set of
religious beliefs. According to historian Henry Steele Commager, the
decision was "perhaps the most important decision reached in the New
World.
Everywhere in the western world of the eighteenth century, church and
state
were one; and everywhere the state maintained the established church and
tried to force conformity to its dogma." As a consequence of that
decision,
Commager notes: "Thus the United States took the lead among the
nations of
the earth in the establishment of religious freedom. That is one reason
America has never had any religious wars or religious persecutions."

The Amendment provides for freedom from any religion as well as
freedom of
religion. This means that Americans are free to belong to the religious
organization of their choice, thereby rejecting the claims of any other
faith system. Simultaneously, they are free from the need to accept
another's beliefs. At the same time, they are free to create new
religions,
thereby rejecting all other established religions. They are also free to
choose not to belong to or believe in any religion. No matter what the
choice, each and every American maintains full status as a citizen. These
rights have been widely recognized and acclaimed, not only by those in
the
legal profession, but also by Protestant and, on occasion, Roman Catholic
churches.

For example, the American Baptist Churches have had a long history
supporting individual human rights. In a Policy Statement on Human Rights
adopted by the General Board of the American Baptist Churches in
December,
1976, it was stated that:

Baptist history is rooted in concern for conscience and freedom for
persons
to believe, to choose, to live unregimented, whether by religious
dogma and
institution or by social and political structures. John Bunyan in prison
and Roger Williams driven from Massachusetts, reflect commitment to these
ideas, as did Martin Luther King, in his witness to human dignity and the
rights of minority groups. Resolutions by the American Baptist Churches
over the years have particularly sought to reflect the denomination's
basic
principles of freedom of thought and belief, the right of dissent, and
the
responsibility to speak prophetically to church and society and support
human dignity and social justice.

As the report continues, the first statement relates to freedom of and
freedom from religion:

As American Baptists we declare the following rights to be basic human
rights, and we will support programs and measures to assure these rights:
1. The right of every person to choose a religion freely, to
maintain religious belief or unbelief without coercion; the right for
communities of faith to meet together to engage in public worship, to
witness publicly to others, to speak prophetically from religious
conviction to government and society, to live out religious beliefs,
and to
be free from governmental intrusion, coercion, and control in the free
exercise of conscience and religion . . .
It is important to note that the Resolution recognizes the rights of
persons who endorse "unbelief" in religion as a basis for life. The
rights
that the resolution claims for those who "maintain religious belief" are
the same rights afforded to those who choose not to maintain such
beliefs.

On May 26, 1988, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin addressed the Center for
Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago Hospital. His subject was
"Euthanasia: Ethical and Legal Challenge." He began his address as
follows:

One of the hallmarks of our democratic system of government and our
social
environment here in the United States is the fact that a plurality of
views
informs our public discourse regarding fundamental human questions. At
times, these views flow from religious beliefs. At other times, they
derive
from philosophical or pragmatic judgments about the meaning and
purpose of
life.
This pluralism is the result of the free speech accorded by the
Constitution to each citizen as well as the right both to freely exercise
one's religion and to practice no religion. (italics his). But this
constitutionally protected pluralism has not been bought at the price of
excluding religious or moral values from the public life of the
nation. On
the contrary, the goal of the American system has been to provide
space for
moral or religious substance in our society.

Indeed, in our pluralistic society we must decide how those who have such
beliefs or ethical principles may appropriately participate in the
development of public policy. In my view, positions that are informed by
particular religious beliefs or philosophical assumptions need to be
translated into commonly agreed upon language, arguments, and categories
before they can become the moral or ethical foundations for key public
policy choices.

As one might expect, Cardinal Bernardin's guiding principles will be
derived from his Roman Catholic faith. However, the Cardinal, like
those of
the Baptist faith, recognized and acknowledged the rights of others to
accept no religion and to base their guiding principles on a
philosophy or
on philosophies. This idea has important overtones regarding the
responsibilities of both government and education.
"Jefferson’s Wall"

Because the government may not engage in the promotion or endorsement of
any particular belief system, it is automatically required by law to
honor
and respect all of the varying forms of belief and non-belief
expressed by
the people. What the First Amendment created was, in the words of Thomas
Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association,
"a wall of separation between church and state." The protections of
freedom
guaranteed by this wall of separation include both the individual
right to
free choice and to privacy of choice. That is to say that not only is the
individual free to make a personal choice regarding belief or
disbelief in
any or all religions, but that the person cannot be required to disclose
that choice or have that choice used against him or her as a basis for
discrimination. We are all equal under the law of the land, no matter in
what we choose to believe or disbelieve. This concept was reinforced in
Justice Black's decision in the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education case:

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 form 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 organization 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 "wall" that was erected pertains not only to the establishment of a
religion, but also to the establishment of religious codes of
morality. For
example, a given religion may believe that divorce is acceptable only on
the grounds of adultery. Civil codes cannot be limited by what that
particular religion accepts as right and proper. Civil morality must be
secular morality, which is to say that the acceptable reasons for legal
divorce cannot be restricted by what a religious group claims to be
proper.
Therefore legal divorce becomes possible on other grounds ranging from
incompatibility to infidelity. Any given religious organization may have
its own grounds for acknowledging the divorce, but that policy remains
within the faith system and has no legitimacy or significance for the
general populace.

Some religious groups may condemn homosexuality on the basis of an
interpretation of what is, for them, authoritative or revealed divine
commands. Other religious groups, using the same sources, may provide a
different interpretation that accepts homosexuality. For example, the
Metropolitan Community Churches are Christian churches whose
membership is
composed largely of Christian homosexuals. Governments may not pass
legislation based solely on religious morality; and although legislation
may be cognizant of the varying belief systems, the legislation must
embrace the social, political and personal rights of all people,
including
homosexuals. In other words, civil laws that formulate communal moral and
ethical standards must be secular—not derived solely from a religious
belief system.
Teaching about Ultimate Beliefs

It is both inappropriate and illegal for any public school or any public
school teacher to propagate or to endorse in any way the concepts or
dogmas
associated with any specific religion or belief system. Although the
teaching and promulgation of a particular faith system is accepted as
appropriate in educational institutions founded and funded as private
religious organizations, it is both inappropriate and illegal for any
public school or any public school teacher to propagate or to endorse in
any way the concepts or dogmas associated with any specific religion or
belief system. However, in courses where teaching about religion is
authorized by the state educational system, it is proper and it is
legal to
teach about religions.

Teaching about religions automatically includes recognition of the rights
of people living in a free society to choose between the various faith
systems as well as their right to reject any one or all of such faith
systems. Teaching about religions requires the recognition of the
legitimacy of lives lived according to varying belief systems as well as
the legitimacy of lives committed to a nonreligious life style. That
is to
say, that teaching about religions must include teaching about the
beliefs
of those who reject a religion or religions.

March 19, 2003
Instruction Systems grants the right to freely duplicate this essay for
educational purposes.


*************************************************************** You
are invited to check out the following:

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 · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . 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) . . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************