Understanding the Separation of Church and State
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/3/5/234552/1620
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 10:45:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Matt Yglesias writes:
Joe Klein names a few characteristics of right-wing extremists,
including:
*believes that homosexuals are condemned to hell. *believes that
there are inferior religions.
. . . I don't really think it's fair to condemn people for holding
them. To me the belief that gay sex acts are immoral is false and
hard-to-justify. It's not, however, politically objectionable unless the
believer goes on to believe that government policy should be aimed at
criminalizing gay sex acts or discriminating against gays or lesbians.
After all, there are tons of religious prohibitions (Muslims don't drink
alcohol, Hindus don't eat beef, Jews don't eat pigs, Pentacostalists don't
dance) that I don't agree with, but that I also don't have a problem with
unless the believers want to turn them into legal prohibitions.
Matt's objections seem limited to political ones. I think the bigger
objection is Constitutional. The First Amendment and the Separation of
Church and State, that much maligned phrase.
Previously I wrote:
One of the many examples of Right Wing distortion and disingenuousness
comes when the concept of church-state separation is discussed. You have
all heard this one -- "The separation of Church and State does not appear
in the Constitution." The argument is that Thomas Jefferson invented the
concept in an 1802 letter to a church group. This is, in a word, false. The
First Amendment states expressly that the State can not be involved in
religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
Did anyone miss that? Congress (which means all government through the
incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment) shall make NO LAW
respecting establishment of religion. One more time, NO LAW. None. Zero.
Zip. Nada. Any ambiguity there? Is the plain meaning of the text in doubt?
But where does it say church/state separation? Repeat and rinse. NO
LAW. The fact that the State can make no law on establishment of religion
separates the State from religion absolutely and entirely. That is what the
text plainly and unmistakably says. Now we all know the Supreme Court, in
acts of activism that please the Right, decided that NO LAW did not really
mean NO LAW. And we live with the Lemon test, more or less, today. But make
no mistake, the First Amendment expressly separates that State from
religion by prohibiting all laws regarding establishment of religion.
As Yglesias frames his examples, the hypothetical laws are all religiously
motivated. That is simply a no no. but imagine instead that say, the
prohiitions against alcohol consumption or eating pork were instead health
based? Obviously then, there would be no First Amendment problem. The more
interesting question is would Yglesias' objections still stand? Are his
objections REALLY politically based beyond what is in the Constitution?
Isn't his objection to the motivation of the proposed laws? I think so.
The questions of believing homosexuality should be criminalized or
discriminating based on religion are also prohibited by the Consititution.
In Lawrence v. Texas, the SCOTUS ruled, roughly, that the liberty provision
of the Due Process Clause prohibited government interference with private
sexual conduct.
And of course the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination based on
religion.
The First Amendment. The Separation of Church and State. These are the
political tenets that the Founders cherished. They are fundamental.
It is not extremist imo to believe in religion. It is extremist to believe
religion can intrude on the State or the State can intrude on Religion.
***************************************************************
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
****************************************************************
.
|
