Therefore, I created this blog in order to provide myself a little more room to articulate my position. My hope is that in doing so, my position will be at least understood and respected. I am not at all hopeful to persuade any who would disagree with me--although if that were to happen, that would be great.
Please understand: I am not out to win any arguments. If your mind is already made up on these issues, that's fine. I'm not trying to change your mind, because I can't. And I really do not have much time to debate. But at least after reading this, you will know where I stand and why.
Because this is more of a position paper than anything else, feel free to comment with the following conditions understood:
- Please--no personal attacks or insults;
- Avoid any offensive or vulgar language;
- Please provide links to any documentation you might reference
Having described my objective, I will begin.
My Position in the Report
Time would simply not allow a full development of my position in the brief news report. A mere 15-20 seconds of sound byte is hardly enough time to describe what I had for dinner, let alone a position on such a topic.
For the record, I understand the difference between private property and public property. I understand the difference between private parties engaging in a business transaction with an advertising agency to purchase billboard space to communicate their product, service, or message, and a message that is displayed on public property.
I understand that anyone, if they have the financial means to do so, may purchase billboard space to communicate with the commuting public. I could buy billboard space, my church could buy billboard space--understood. I respect that. And quite honestly, I have no problem with the billboard going up along the 94 freeway. I do not agree with the message of the billboard--by any stretch. But I am not threatened by it. Anyone who is genuinely seeking out truth ought to hear what the different groups have to say and then form an opinion or a belief. No problem.
My contention, however, lies within the accessibility of both groups to communicate their message in the public sector. Let me elaborate:
First Amendment
The Constitution was written in rather simple terms, using simple phrases so that the average citizen might be able to read and understand its content. The First Amendment is an example of such content:
The first two clauses of the First Amendment--also known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause--address the issues of a) the government establishing a state-run church such as the Church of England; and b) the government otherwise prohibiting or inhibiting the freedom of Americans to practice their religious beliefs.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the amendment. That phrase was used by President Thomas Jefferson in his reply to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, who were concerned that this constitution would serve as a precursor to the establishment of a state-run church, where another denomination would receive favorable standing in the state and they as Baptists would be on the outside looking in, as it were.
Fast forward to 1947. A fellow named Arch Everson did not like the fact that his tax dollars were going to reimburse parents in the township of Ewing, New Jersey, who were transporting their children to school--both public and parochial--via public transportation. Everson contended that such reimbursement violated both the federal constitution as well as the New Jersey Constitution. In what became the well-known case of Everson v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court found 5-4 that it was not a violation of either charter. However, in writing the majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black concluded by writing the following:
The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.
What is interesting is that in reading Black's opinion, he warns against the establishment of a state-sponsored church. His decision supporting the Board of Education indicates that tax money used to reimburse parents' public transportation costs in sending their kids to parochial school did not constitute an establishment of a state-sponsored religion.
Yet numerous judicial decisions since 1947 have used Black's statement to create the notion that "separation of church and state" means that the "church" (now religion in general) needs to stay completely out of the public square. Out of the school, out of the halls of legislature, out of public property.
The problem then arises, in my opinion, with the second clause of the First Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause. These relatively recent misuses of Jefferson's phrase to misrepresent the Establishment Clause have now crossed into the territory where the Free Exercise Clause is routinely violated. Something as publicly displaying a Nativity scene in a park, where the state has not proactively sponsored, either financially or otherwise, is seen as establishing a state religion and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause. Yet such a prohibition itself could constitute a violation of the Free Exercise Clause, as that group putting up the Nativity scene is thereby prohibited from the free exercise of its religious beliefs.
Ironic
The irony to this debate comes when the elements of secularism, humanism, and atheism are introduced into the public square. Secular, humanist, and atheist beliefs are not only permitted, but welcomed.
The irony of this lies in understanding just how the term "religion" is defined. Consider the definitions found at dictionary.com:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe;"
"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects;"It is my contention that humanism, as well as atheism, are in actuality religions:
- They both have a set of beliefs as to the cause of the universe;
- They both have a set of beliefs as to the nature of the universe;
- They both have a set of beliefs as to the purpose of the universe;
- They would both espouse the human intellect (call it reason, knowledge, or whatever you please) as the supreme source of authority;
- They would both point to the ultimate purpose of humanity to be self-realization
As such, there are more than a few examples of humanism/atheism on display in the public square--in education, in the halls of government, on public property. Were it necessary to cite specific examples, an additional blog post would be in order.
Yet my contention is not that I believe that humanism/atheism should be removed from the public square. In fact, I believe the exact opposite: that the humanists and the atheists should have every opportunity to exercise their religious beliefs without any governmental intrusion.
For example, I have no problem whatsoever with a humanist/atheist display in a public area that states their view. I have no problem with a sign in a park with their new slogan that is being used on the billboard by the 94 freeway. I don't think the government has any business prohibiting the free exercise of the humanists or the atheists to espouse and practice their deeply held beliefs, as that is protected by the First Amendment.
All I am asking is that the same protection be afforded to the Christian groups that want to put a Nativity scene in that same park nearby the humanists'/atheists' sign. Let the Jews put up a symbol of their religion; Muslims theirs; Buddhists and Hindus theirs. Let them all freely exercise their religious beliefs; and if that includes allowing them a chance to publicly display those beliefs, then so be it.
So yes, I understand the difference between groups buying billboard space to put their message out in public, and a display on public property. Yes, I understand that I have the same opportunity to buy billboard space as does the humanist/atheist coalition in San Diego. But my point had to do with what I consider to be the inconsistent application of the First Amendment with regards to the humanists/atheists and every other religious group when it comes to public square messaging opportunities. I am one who believes that one viewpoint should not be espoused in the public square to the exclusion of all others.
You say "All I am asking is that the same protection be afforded to the Christian groups that want to put a Nativity scene in that same park nearby the humanists'/atheists' sign. Let the Jews put up a symbol of their religion; Muslims theirs; Buddhists and Hindus theirs. Let them all freely exercise their religious beliefs; and if that includes allowing them a chance to publicly display those beliefs, then so be it."
ReplyDeleteWe atheists agree. While we think it's probably better for the gov to not put on such displays, if no special accord is given we have no problem. Your position, however is NOT what is normally put forth. Christian groups typically expect and demand SPECIAL treatment...christian prayers at council meetings...crosses on public property...nativity scenes...to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Atheists, like you, simply want an even playing field. We'd prefer no religious entanglement because we know of no city council that will pray to Jesus one day, to Buddha the next, then Allah but if you're good with that, we're on board.
As you expected, there are points of contention with the following (enumerated by me for simplicity of reply):
ReplyDelete1) They both have a set of beliefs as to the cause of the universe;
2) They both have a set of beliefs as to the nature of the universe;
3) They both have a set of beliefs as to the purpose of the universe;
4) They would both espouse the human intellect (call it reason, knowledge, or whatever you please) as the supreme source of authority;
5) They would both point to the ultimate purpose of humanity to be self-realization
The most problematic of these is #4 - I think you'd find that many secularists and atheists would contend that *reality* is the supreme source of authority, not human intellect. Human intellect is flawed, subject to bias, subject to sensory limitations, and notoriously variable from a person-to-person standpoint. For me, I reject the very concept of 'ultimate authority' in the first place, but primarily because I don't like the amount of sentient baggage that comes with the word authority.
#3 is somewhat problematic for me, as I do not ascribe *any* particular purpose to the universe. The universe simply *is*. Existence simply *is*. No sentient authority to establish purpose required. However, there are indeed atheists out there that do ascribe some kind of a purpose - many Buddhists come to mind, for example.
#1 and #2 could be argued with as well, though I personally do have a set of beliefs revolving around cause and nature. But a lack of belief in a deity does not necessitate having any given belief in that regard; "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.
#5 is actually pretty close to my belief structure, though I would not say the purpose is self-realization, but rather purpose is something we get to define for ourselves.
Now. There is something to be said about the *semantic* argument, insofar as we could primarily be disagreeing on semantics but not content. In order to help smooth that out, I wonder if you could define what it would mean to *not* have religious beliefs?
I would just like to say thanks for calling us your friends ... even though you must preface it with 'atheist' and 'humanist'. Do you also send messages to all of your 'black' friends?
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with your closing sentence stating, “I am one who believes that one point of view should not be espoused in the public square to the exclusion of all others.” What I don’t understand is the basis for the point you are trying to make about there being an “inconsistent application of the First Amendment with regards to the humanists/atheists and every other religious group when it comes to public square opportunities.” It would be wonderful if you would provide the additional blog post that describes a few of the “more than a few examples of humanism/atheism on display in the public square – in education, in the halls of government, on public property” where Christianity did not have equal access to the public square.
ReplyDeleteChristian privilege in America is the starting position for most conflicts concerning access to the public square. The cross on the top of Mount Soledad is a Christian cross. The prayer banner on the wall of a Cranston, Rhode Island school is a Christian prayer. The cross on the top of the city water tower in Whiteville, Tennessee is a Christian cross. The picture on the wall of Jackson Middle School in Ohio is Jesus. The prayer said at the beginning of many city council meetings across the country is a Christian prayer. I do not think it is possible for you to produce a similar list of displays and presentation on government property where only an Islam or only Jewish or only humanist/atheist or any other non-Christian message is the sole focus of the display.
I can understand if you are unhappy about the loss of Christian privilege that is happening today. Loss of privilege is often painful. But loss of privilege is no excuse for your claim that Christians are being treated unfairly or with inconsistency concerning access to public spaces controlled and owned by the government. I could be wrong and you may be able to demonstrate that Christians were not able to voice their opinion while non-Christians were permitted to voice their opinion. I am guessing all you can provide are examples where the Christian message had to be removed because it was impossible to share that space with all the non-Christians that wanted equal access with the Christians to the public square.
1. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThat the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
2. It is important to distinguish between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties, they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
ReplyDeleteWhether "atheism" should be regarded a "religion" depends not only on how one defines "atheism" and "religion," but also the context and purpose of labeling it one way or the other. Religion can be defined various ways, some broad, e.g., a world view providing a systematic approach to living, and some more specific, e.g., such a world view associated with faith and belief in a deity or higher power. For purposes of discussing philosophy, whether one treats atheism as a religion likely depends on how one defines "atheism." To the extent atheism is defined as the lack of any belief in god(s), it doesn't seem to qualify as a religion in the sense of a philosophical world view any more than the absence of any belief in all sorts of other things, e.g., unicorns. That said, those lacking a belief in god(s) generally have other beliefs, e.g., materialism or paganism, that together may be regarded a religion. Fair enough--though I'm not sure "atheism" is the right label for such a religion.
In any event, for purposes of determining whether all persons, believers and nonbelievers alike, enjoy the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion, courts have decided to treat atheism as the equivalent of a religion so that the Amendment equally affords atheists and theists the freedom to exercise their "religion." It should hardly be supposed, though, that the courts' interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment free exercise clause to cover atheists as much as theists means that they consider "atheism" a "religion" in any and all contexts and for any and all purposes.
Nor should it be supposed that the government, by remaining separate from and neutral toward religion in keeping with the Constitution, somehow thereby favors atheism over theism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. It is one thing for the government to endorse the idea that god(s) exist or, alternatively, endorse the idea that god(s) do not exist; it is quite another for the government to take no position on the matter and respect the right of each individual to freely decide for himself.
Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx