The choice of phrase is important, “separation of church and state”. Jefferson doesn’t say separation of religion and state. He is talking about institutionalseparation. Ireland’s official church is the Roman Catholic Church, as is Poland’s. In England, it’s the Church of England. These aren’t religions in general but specific religious institutions. No nation has “Christianity” as the official state religion for a very good reason. The reason is that there’s about 50,000-some odd flavors that run the gamut from the Mormons to the Unitarians. Some Christians say Jesus established a hierarchical church, others say he was a social activist, still others say he was an anarchist. Saying Christianity is the official state religion would border on effective meaninglessness. It wasn’t the ideas that the Founders were afraid of which is why they were perfectly free praying together and expressing religious sentiment in public documents and speeches. Institutional corruption and tyranny were their concerns.
The results of institutional mingling of churches and governments are quite clear in history and it hasn’t been beneficial for the state or the church. However, this is a far cry from divining an intent that projects the idea that “religion is all that’s wrong with the world” upon the Founders. There was a camp among the Founders who believed that a free society required a religious people and yet still continued to allow free association between the various churches.
However, the crowd pushing separation most vigorously also is the crowd that’s trying to regulate certain religious beliefs out of existence. Pharmacists aren’t allowed to express their religious sentiments about abortion and retain their jobs. The argument is that they shouldn’t take the job if they don’t follow a pre-defined ethical construct approved by the government. Catholic hospitals are consistently fighting attempts to force them to provide abortions despite their clear religious teaching. Catholic Charities in California are required to recognize “gay marriage” despite their own beliefs. Schoolchildren (a.k.a. individual citizens not to be confused with government officials) are told that they aren’t allowed to pray or have Bible studies on school property. In one case, school children were threatened with federal prison if they dared utter a prayer on their own volition during a graduation ceremony. The IRS has investigated churches for preaching against abortion. In short, the wall of separation is growing to enforce a certain religious orthodoxy and not protect the free expression of religion that was also mentioned in the First Amendment.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Pat Fish
Don't know if it will make you feel any better, but I agree with every word.
2 - Maurice
Damn! That was well written. I am an atheist/agnostic but I have to say that you summed it up very well. I especially liked your reference to the sword cutting both ways.
Time for tolerance all the way around!
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
The crowd pushing to legislate religion out of American life has diverse elements to it. One group is Jews who interpret "religion" to mean Christianity. Since most other Americans mean Christianity when they talk about religion, it has an element of legitimacy to it.
A couple of decdes ago, Moslems were part of this same crowd, but they now have a different agenda that "diversity" seems to be part of.
Of course, it should be borne n mind that the founders of your country for the most part were Deists and Theists - but not necessarily Christians.
4 - Michael J. West
I actually agree with you almost 100 percent on this one. Probably the best piece of yours I've read, Bambenek.
Where I disagree is on a specific example:
Pharmacists aren't allowed to express their religious sentiments about abortion and retain their jobs. The argument is that they shouldn't take the job if they don't follow a pre-defined ethical construct approved by the government.
Expressing religious sentiments about abortion is one thing; refusing to fill legitimate prescriptions is another. Filling legitimate prescriptions is their job, and I would say that "the argument is that they shouldn't take the job if they don't intend to do that job." If you are being paid to provide a service, you must do it according to the rules of that service profession.
I don't consider that to be a religious issue at all, frankly. I think it's legitimate to object when a professional refused to do what he/she is being paid and expected to do.
5 - Victor Lana
Nicely done, John! I think you're absolutely right that the Founding Fathers feared most of all a state religion like in England. They realized the head of state should never be the head of any church.
Many years later John F. Kennedy answered critics very nicely by saying that he was a President who happened to be Catholic and not a Catholic president.
6 - Michael J. West
Of course, it should be borne n mind that the founders of your country for the most part were Deists and Theists - but not necessarily Christians.
Unless Unitarians qualify as Christians...
7 - gonzo marx
ok..i just can't resist, no one has appeared to have made this point...
John B has raised some decent point, but it is my Thought that what he does NOT raise is quite crucial to the discussion at hand..
to wit: Freedom OF Religion also requires Freedom FROM Religion.
can we Agree on this Principle here?
this shows the logical Fallacy involved with much of the Arguments made in the original Post
to demonstrate this Principle, try this mental excercise...at any time when you think that "prayer" or the use of the term" god" is appropriate...substitute something else for it, and see just how comfortable you feel with it...
example: a ten year old boy likes to read his bible aloud to friends and discuss it and evangelize the principles of being "born again" in school
many folks are all for this, and think it's a good thing and cannot understand why someone would object...
try this...a ten year old boy likes to read aloud from Anton LaVey's Satanic bible in school, discuss it and evangelizes the practice to his classmates
still feel comfortable?
THAT is the crux of it
as for churches and taxes and the like...i,personally think that having ANY "church" tax exempt and ANY person(clergy or otherwise) exampt from the IRS violates my "equal protection" Rights under the Constitution...they and their function sare NO different than any other business, or at best, non-profit organization and should be required to pay their property tax, income tax and SS payments, just like any other business
did i miss anything?
your friendly neighborhood heretic, who thinks our Government shoudl remain secular...
Excelsior!
8 - John Bambenek
My point is what did they mean by "religion"... I think with the free expression following right after and in the light of history, I don't think it means freedom from religion. Freedom from IMPOSED religion sure.
9 - Clubhouse Cancer
If churches had to pay income taxes, the industry of evangelism in this country would dry up, and criminal geniuses like Robertson and Falwell would have to come up with entirely new scams to make money.
10 - gonzo marx
when it comes to the Government, as you so correctly showed with your link to Jefferson's writing, it most certainly DOES mean freedom FROM religion when it refers to ANY dealings with out government
but there is the crux of the matter, i am more than happy to co-exist with ANY persons Faith...but i do NOT tolerate ANY example of such "faith" in our Government, and will invoke my Rights under the "establishment clause" to ensure that said government is as secular as possible
now..look up at my examples, and share with us honestly, your Thoughts on the examples i cited...
your main point appears to revolve around what you believe the Founders were Thinking!!!!
i would ask to prove your clairvoyance before i can take those assertations seriously
nuff said?
Excelsior!
11 - Clubhouse Cancer
And, yes, Gonzo, it is hard to see how the religious tax exemption doesn't violate the equal protection clause.
12 - Clubhouse Cancer
Gonzo, what are your thought about the way the establishment clause is phrased?
It doesn't say Cgrs shall not "establish a religion," it says ngrs shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which seems to me to be much broader.
I'd argue that a federal law exempting churches from taxes is inarguably a law "respecting the establishment of religion."
13 - gonzo marx
Clubhouse, you have hit another nail right on the head, IMO...
i deliberately did NOT get into that particular point due to John B's statements regarding what he believes to have been in the Founders' minds rather than the actual words of the Document , which were carefully gone over for quite some time until agreed upon
Excelsior!
14 - Michael J. West
Since we're talking about the Establishment Clause, let's note that it doesn't say "THE Establishment of religion." It says,
"Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion."
Does that refer to "establishing" a religion? Or to a pre-existing "religious establishment," such as a church or other religion-affiliated institution? I'd argue the latter, since the former case would have surely used the word "the" instead of "an."
So, translated to the vernacular, "Congress shall make no law that has anything to do with any religious institution."
15 - Nancy
The point against pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions is that they are second-guessing a doctor, and therefore practicing medicine without a license. They're pharmacists, not physicians, and furthermore are not the physician of the patient involved in the prescription. Religion is only the excuse here, not the gist.
16 - John Bambenek
Churches aren't profit-producing entities, but thanks for proving my point.
It's not enough that there is no state church. This is requiring another step. There are plenty of charities of every stripe that are tax exempt, but recognizing that churches aren't profit-producing all the sudden runs foul, so we must take those donations instead calling a non-profit institution for-profit in the process?
And that's tolerance?
And the point of pharmacists refusing to fill perscriptions has nothing to do with second guessing a doctor (which they are perfectly entitled to do), it is not perscribing something to which they are morally opposed. They can hand the perscription back and the person can go elsewhere. These are private individuals in private companies in a private enterprise, not government actors. They are perfectly entitled to determine how, when, what, and why they will or will not provide services.
17 - JP II
I think the postulates in Mr. Bambenek's original post are misleading. Yes, there are extremists (on all sides). But I have never met a "separationist" whose desire or intent is to "regulate certain religious beliefs out of existence."
Despite what Mr. Bambenek implies above, serious supporters of "separation" (including mainstream institutions like the ACLU) BELIEVE THESE THINGS:
- It is perfectly acceptable for schoolchildren to have Bible study meetings on campus (as long as the campus also allows meetings by other non-school-affiliated groups)
- It is perfectly acceptable for a child to pray of his own volition in school (or at graduation events, or at football games)
- It is perfectly acceptable for an individual to express religious beliefs in the public arena (including a president invoking God in a speech) [Separationists DO NOT believe that "The mere expression of the word 'God' in a speech" makes a theocracy.]
- It is perfectly acceptable for religious displays (such as Christmas nativity scenes) to be set up in publicly accessible areas like shopping malls, stores, Christmas tree lots, street corners, in parades...
- It is perfectly acceptable for moral or religious values to have a bearing on an individual officeholders' decisions regarding policy or law
- It is perfectly acceptable that the Catholic Church does not "recognize gay marriage" or domestic partnerships as legitimate in any religious sense or in the eyes of their God. (that's a very different issue from whether a corporation like Catholic Charities must recognize legal requirements to provide certain employment benefits to two partners in a state-sanctioned legal contract who happen to be the same gender. Note that a legal union as defined by the state is not the same as a religious marriage "in the eyes of God" as defined by a particular church. The Catholic Church doesn't even recognize the legitimacy of a marriage between two formerly married people -- but the state of California says they are married. And, by the way, "gay marriage" is not yet legal in California.)
- It is perfectly acceptable for a church to preach against abortion, or on any other issue.
Yet, Mr. Bambenek presents his argument as if separationists would outlaw all of the above. That is nonsense, and it is false.
... his kind of argument always makes me wonder: is the writer deliberately obfuscating the real issues, in order to gain sympathy for a pro-official-religionist view?? Or is he just unclear himself about what separationists actually believe?
Mr. Bambenek's claims are given no context, so I won't refute each one here. But if the context was specific, it would be easy to refute his claims.
For example, this one is spun so hard it borders on outright lie:
- QUOTE BAMBENEK: "In one case, school children were threatened with federal prison if they dared utter a prayer on their own volition during a graduation ceremony."
In fact, the court ruled that a student committee, appointed to plan a ceremony on behalf of a public, government-run school, could not insert a formally-led prayer as part of the official school graduation ceremony. If they had done so, the school would obviously be endorsing and preaching a government-selected religion to all students at the graduation.
On the other hand, if a large group of students had wanted to get together immediately after the official ceremony ended, gather in a circle, and hold a shared prayer amongst themselves, this would be perfectly allowable, by any court, and by any advocate of church/state separation! Meanwhile after the ceremony, other students might be having their own prayers with their parents, still others grouping to take photographs, and some would be making plans to get to their big party -- obviously none of that would amount to state-sponsorship of these activities.
Again, I am a separationist, and I've never met one separationist who wants to "regulate religion into hiding" or to "legislate religion out of American life."
However, it is clear to me that far-right-wing organizations (i.e. the FRC) lately have been touting these false "separationist" positions constantly in the media -- it seems, in order to obfuscate the real issue: their own intent to INSERT religion into the official life of the US government itself.
JP II
18 - Nancy
Yeah, but none of these 'private' companies they happen to work for either allows or encourages non-filling of legal prescriptions, because it tends to alienate customers, as well as being illegal. Which kinds shreds your argument.
19 - gonzo marx
to John B...
perhaps i was unclear...
i have NO problem with any church registering as a non-profit and being treated as such for tax purposes
that does NOT exempt them from local property taxes
and it most assuredly does NOT exempt the priest/reverend/mullah/rabbi/whatever from having to report and pay his personal income tax on the monies he is paid
also, EVERY non-profit must report the income it takes in, and then account for it...EXCEPT churches and clergy
all i ask is that they be treated like ANY other non-profit, and that the clergy pay their income tax like anyone else...the physical church pay it's property tax like anyone else...
Equal Protection and all that
as for Pharmacists...it varies from state to state, but the Issue revolves around them obeying their LISCENSE's requirements...which are, to put it simply...to ill the scripts sent by a physician...period
if they refuse, simple enough, pull their fucking liscense for the Violation
we won't even get into the Ethics here, it is a simple matter of living up to the obligations of the profession as defined by their liscense
does that explain the two points better?
Excelsior!
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
When I was a kid, the gold standard test for spelling ability was the ability to spell "antidisestablishmentarianism."
I'm a lousy typist, but I'm a damned good speller. But I digress.
Establishmentarianism was (and is) the doctrine of having an "established" church - like the Anglican Church in England is. To make it utterly clear, that means a church that is recognized as official and protected by the sovereign.
The founders, when they agreed to twelve (which became ten) amendments to the constitution once it was adopted, wished to avoid a civil war, among other things. For years Catholicism was the established church in the Province (later State) of Maryland, Congregationalism was the established church in the Province (later State) of Connecticut, etc.
Thus, the establishment of religion was something the congress was to avoid. The states already had established religions. It should further be remembered and ever borne in mind that until the fourteenth amendment was passed in the mid 1800's, the first amendment only applied as a brake to action by the federal government.
Until then, while most states eventually eschewed establishing a religion in their borders, there was nothing in the federal constitution to make them. The federal constitution required that they have republican forms of government, and not much else.
Jefferson's "wall of separation" applied at first only to the federal government.
This view has all changed with the virtual disappearance of state borders and with the application of the first ten amendments to bar state action by states and their agents (counties, cities and townships) through the use of the fourteenth amendment.
When I lived in the States I changed from seeking freedom from religion (like Gonzo) to seeking not to have an established religion (like John Bambenek) because I understood the consequences of the former, seductive as it sounds. It meant that people had to work seven days a week, it meant no real holidays where EVERYONE had off except Christmas, Thanksgiving and Easter. I managed a fast food restaurant and that is what freedom from religion (combined with market forces) meant for me and those under my supervision.
Just to remind you, when you pull into the BK on a Sunday morning, and the guy says "welcome to Burger King, what can I get for you today?" that guy is working. He doesn't get Sunday off to go to church, or knock off or play with himself or whatever. When you go to Walmart's on Saturday afternoon and some old guy says, "Welcome to Walmart's," he is working.
It weren't like that when I was a kid spelling "antidisestablishmentarianism".
21 - Bennett
JPII - Well written piece, and I agree with ALL of your points. Good job.
22 - JP II
Ruvy --
The five-day work week was won through actions by unions (often referred to by right-wingers as "pinkos, socialists, communists).
WalMart is vehemently an anti-union corporation.
As a separationist, I do not seek "Freedom From Religion." I simply seek "Freedom from you or anyone else using the government power structure to preach that your religion is better than mine, all the while using my tax dollars to do it."
23 - Clubhouse Cancer
Ruvy, there are thousands of pages of regulations and labor laws in this country. To ascribe poor working conditions to some perceived watering-down of religious values is a little presumptuous.
By the way, that guy working Saturday? He had Tuesday off!
24 - John Bambenek
1) Clergy DO have to report income. I know many clergy, all of them pay taxes.
2) Non-profit entities do NOT have to pay property tax, Churches included. If the Church has portions of its property used for for-profit activities, then they DO have to pay property taxes and DO.
25 - Mark Schannon
What's tragic about the underlying issue around this discussion is that we're really letting the fringe elements on both sides of the political spectrum define the debate.
The extent to which there's agreement between the so-called separatists and (what?) non-separatists is significant and should be recognized. There should be lots of pats on the back & "hey, well done there, fella or gal."
However, there are problems on both sides. Gonzo, to whom we all bow in supplication (but not as a deity of course), makes the important point about "freedom from" and does so ingeniously. So too should we remember the chaplains at the Air Force Academy trying to ram religion down people's throats. But they too are in the minority--and need to be stopped.
Equally important, it's idiotic (and I speak as an agnostic separatist liberal commie pinko radical libertarian) to tell a bunch of kids that they can't get together on school grounds and pray--just so long as there's no pressure for others to join.
The solution is based on tolerance and respect--often in such short supply that we should borrow some from...hmmm...France? No. Germany? No. England? No. Canada...nah, comes with too much snow and ice. China? Don't make me laugh.
Come to think of it, we're just going to have to do it ourselves.
In Jamesons Veritas