http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php

[...] Last week, the University of Minnesota announced [...] it has ceased the
creation of courses addressing the relationship between faith and healing
after the Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit
against the institution in federal court. [...]

Reply to article by:

Unfortunately, the University succumbed to the pressures of a few sue-happy
Americans. Instead of dragging the institution through the financial
constraints often present with litigation, the University cowered like a
child facing a schoolyard bully and conceded to the demands of the
Foundation.

If the legal counsel of the University had more gumption to pursue this
matter, they would have realized that both the law and academic freedom
were on their side.

Studying the correlation between faith and healing — as the proposed
courses intended to do — is indeed constitutional.

The Foundation, on the
other hand, believes public universities should avoid the discussion of the
“r” word completely. Nonetheless, there is a difference between studying
the role of religion in American life and endorsing a particular religion.
Atheists can’t seem to accept the distinction.

http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/09/16/athiests_misuse_firs.php

Athiests misuse First Amendment


by Darryn Beckstrom
Friday, September 16, 2005

I have a polite request for a handful of lawyers in Madison: please keep
your politics within the confines of your own city. Last week, the
University of Minnesota announced in addition to withdrawing from the
Minnesota Faith/Health Consortium earlier this summer, it has ceased the
creation of courses addressing the relationship between faith and healing
after the Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit
against the institution in federal court.

This recent action by a group of Madison-bred attorneys affirms the notion
that the interpretation of a “wall of separation” between church and state
is becoming increasingly distorted.

The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit laws “respecting an
establishment of religion.” Regrettably, many anti-religious organizations
have interpreted this clause — contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court — to read
that no public entity shall mention religion in any form.

The Foundation not only sought the University’s immediate withdrawal from
the Consortium, they also demanded the research institution halt the
development of the Faith/Health Clinical Leadership program. The program,
in conjunction with Luther Seminary and Fairview Health Services, would
have provided clinical courses to graduate students interested in
researching the intersections between faith and healing.

Ironically, the Foundation sued the University before the sequence of
courses was developed and offered to students. With the courses still on
the drawing board, though, the Foundation naively inferred such classes
were endorsing religion. Why would such an organization do this? It’s quite
obvious: when atheists see the word “religion,” they immediately cry foul.

Unfortunately, the University succumbed to the pressures of a few sue-happy
Americans. Instead of dragging the institution through the financial
constraints often present with litigation, the University cowered like a
child facing a schoolyard bully and conceded to the demands of the
Foundation.

If the legal counsel of the University had more gumption to pursue this
matter, they would have realized that both the law and academic freedom
were on their side.

Studying the correlation between faith and healing — as the proposed
courses intended to do — is indeed constitutional. The Foundation, on the
other hand, believes public universities should avoid the discussion of the
“r” word completely. Nonetheless, there is a difference between studying
the role of religion in American life and endorsing a particular religion.

Atheists can’t seem to accept the distinction.

If it had seen the inside of a courtroom, the Foundation’s substandard
legal argument would have been quashed by established case law. To
determine whether the University violated the establishment clause by
involvement in the Consortium and offering of such classes, the federal
court would have applied the test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman. If the
Court applied the Lemon test, it would have found the actions of the
University indeed had a secular purpose, they did not have the primary
effect of advancing or inhibiting religion and they did not foster an
excessive government entanglement with religion. Simply put, the
University’s actions were constitutional.

The constitutionality of the courses aside, the organization also
encroaches on academic freedom in a university setting. The Foundation
considers itself a group of “freethinkers.” Unfortunately, these
freethinkers prefer to censor intellectual thought that doesn’t comport to
their ideals. In the end, intellectual diversity has been forced to take a
backseat while atheists continue to force their way to the helm of
curricular control.

An overarching question raised by the recent actions of the Freedom from
Religion Foundation is somewhat obvious: will this litigation ever end? The
establishment clause of the First Amendment is one of the most litigated
provisions of the Constitution. And the Foundation doesn’t seem to be
letting up on the citizens of Minnesota any time soon. The organization is
now attacking Gov. Pawlenty’s proposal to create a Minnesota Council of
Faith-based Initiatives to better assist religious organizations in
providing social services to the citizens in the state.

Atheists and those organizations targeting what they erroneously believe to
be actions of the Religious Right need to realize they have been using the
wrong forum for their assault on religion. They have been using our
nation’s courtrooms to influence nothing more than what amounts to public
policy. Sometimes they find a judge who is sympathetic to their politics,
sometimes they don’t. Nonetheless, the pages of the Constitution should not
be a place to fight hollow legal arguments. The halls of our state
legislatures and Congress would be more appropriate.

The Constitution bars the “establishment of religion,” and studying its
role in American life is hardly “establishing” anything, except for the
right of students to study a question of importance and interest to the
medical community.

Darryn Beckstrom is a doctoral student in the Department of Political
Science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public
Affairs.

**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education

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 · 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
****************************************************************