As a continuation of my last post about atheists, I thought I’d explore the concept of the separation of Church and State. I mainly do this because part of the mission of some atheists is the complete absence of religion from the public square. In particular, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is particularly interested in the cause that bears their name. In my opinion, they are taking the concept of the separation of Church and State well beyond what the original framers of the Constitution intended. But, yet, I am a bit sympathetic to the need to keep Church and State at arm’s length.
The concept of this terminology stems from two place. First is the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
Second is a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” (Wikipedia)
The points being:
- There is no state religion in the United States. In spite of the insistence of some Christians that this is a “Christian Nation,” we are not. Not to say that God and religion did not have an effect on the creation of our nation. It did. But, it was clear that no state religion was established in the US.
- The government will not infringe on the free exercise of one’s religion. Now, this can be debated as to whether or not the government has placed some restrictions on the exercise of religion. Certainly, we have been told there is a “war of religion” going on now. And groups like the FFRF are actively involved in placing restrictions of certain religious and traditional practices we have had in the country such as Christmas decorations in the town square. And while Jefferson contemplates the “wall” between Church and State, many would argue that the wall has not really existed or it has been very thin.
I am in favor of the maintaining this separation. For example, I am not in favor of prayer in schools, whether voluntary or not. I can only think of one time we were ask to pray in school by a teacher. That was the day that President Kennedy was killed.
On the other hand, in spite of being a different religion growing up, I was never offended by the Christmas displays on public property or the singing of Christmas songs in school. I actually loved singing Christmas carols.
But again, I go back to a statement I made in the last post. If you don’t like it or agree with it, what not just ignore it?
If the US Constitution permits the free exercise of one’s religion, must it always and only be conducted in private or behind closed doors?
Does a Christmas decoration on City Hall constitute the endorsement of a religion or really infringe on a right not to be confronted by religion?
How far do we have to go to reach a reasonable accommodation for all?
Do groups like the FFRF really have a right to try to remove all religion from the public square?
Wheat & Tares 
My wife had to sit through school prayers asking God to save the poor damned Jews and Mormons.
I get that point.
If the US Constitution permits the free exercise of one’s religion, must it always and only be conducted in private or behind closed doors?
To unpack what it means that exercise of religion must only be conducted in private:
Students absolutely can pray in public schools, as the class schedules permit. What is not allowed is for the school administration to be involved in said prayers or to be perceived as providing a seal of approval for the specific prayers.
So, students praying as individual students: ok. Students praying as a club: ok. Students praying as representatives of the school with school imprimatur (e.g., over school sponsored loud speakers, speaking as representatives of the school, etc.,): NOT ok.
Does a Christmas decoration on City Hall constitute the endorsement of a religion or really infringe on a right not to be confronted by religion?
Especially when City Hall puts up a Christmas decoration — and does not put up decorations for other religious traditions or even those without religious traditions — it does constitute an endorsement of a religion, and it does infringe on others. (This is not just an atheist thing…it infringes upon everyone who is not a part of the religious tradition that is endorsed.)
The quick test of this is to see what happens when a group tries to get competing religious symbols or icons on the government property. E.g., in Oklahoma, with the Baphomet statue. If the government is amenable to every group who wants to have their symbols recognized, then that doesn’t infringe. But to the extent people are resistant, then that shows that the intention always was to endorse one religion over others.
How far do we have to go to reach a reasonable accommodation for all?
If you don’t endorse *anyone’s* religion, then you don’t have to accommodate *everyone else’s*. Those are the options — endorse everyone (so that there is no favoritism), or, keep everyone out.
” it does constitute an endorsement of a religion”
On the other hand, a Christmas tree is not a religion symbol the way a cross or Mogen David is. So it is more secular than religious even though it might represent a Christian holiday of sorts?
Taking a look at FFRF’s ongoing lawsuits
http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/ongoing-lawsuits
These lawsuits seem to center around places that prioritize Christian expressions of religion while discriminating against other religions.
If the nativity scenes can go up, the Satanic Temple can have a display too. If the Gideons can distribute bibles, Muslims can distribute Korans.
That’s freedom of religion.
This is a straw man, you’re arguing against a position the FFRF not taking.
Jeff,
Since some Christians also include Santa and Christmas trees as being part of the war against Christmas (vs. Jesus and nativity scenes), it certainly appears that Christians have rejected those symbols (which, to be fair, were borrowed/stolen from other traditions in the first place.)
I guess I would ask what is gained by having the religious practice or display take place in a public place? People who believe in prayer can pray in their homes and churches. Nativity displays can be set up on church and home lawns for the public to drive by and visit.
I am with those commenters who see the current “war on religion” to be more of a Christian majority objecting whenever their religion is not privileged over other beliefs. Mormons, as a once-reviled religious minority, ought to be more sensitive to the rights of religious minorities and the need for a strong separation of church and state. Are we so anxious to embrace the culture wars and present ourselves as a Christian religion that we forget where we came from? The Church could try putting up a statue of the angel Moroni next to every display of the ten commandments and they’d see immediately how they really are still a minority religion.
“Are we so anxious to embrace the culture wars and present ourselves as a Christian religion that we forget where we came from?”
Yes.
“These lawsuits seem to center around places that prioritize Christian expressions of religion while discriminating against other religions.”
I guess my question is “why do they care?” It would be understandable if a Synagogue sued a city because they won’t let a Hanukkah Menorah go up next to a Christmas tree, but why does the FFRF care? It appears they are just looking to cause contention.
Jeff wrote: ” It appears they are just looking to cause contention.” EXACTLY. Interpretation of the non-establishment cause (which, BTW, when originally enacted in 1791 was intended to restrict Congress from establishing a FEDERAL religion but didn’t necessarily do same to the several states, there was a time the Commonwealth of Massachusetts funded Congregationalist Churches with state funds. Not that I’d want to see the LDS Church rake in Utah tax receipts. However, the non-establishment of ANY religion by ANY government in the USA, which I feel is proper, has become in effect the ‘establishment’ of irreligion or anti-religion, which not only goes against popular sentiment but was never intended by even the most open-minded Deists that made up made of the framers of the Constitution.
That’s another reason why I stump for Libertarianism. The less Government has going on, the less the First Amendment becomes an issue.
Jeff,
Because the FFRF recognizes that if a city won’t even treat other religions fairly, then they certainly aren’t going to treat the non-religious fairly. (Keep in mind that is a big deal: a lot of “ecumenical discussions” end up being, “OK, so we all believe in God, isn’t that great?” which excludes nonbelievers. But if things aren’t even ecumenically friendly, then that’s even worse news for nonbelievers.)
I agree with Joel @6. It seems to me the biggest problem for religious freedom, are religions that try to impose their beliefs on others. By doing this they undermine their authority and respect, and cause people to want them disrespected.
There is no problem with people being allowed to live their religion, among themselves, but it does become a problem when they thing their beliefs should be applied to others, whether for their own good or the good of society.
Andrew,
“Because the FFRF recognizes that if a city won’t even treat other religions fairly, then they certainly aren’t going to treat the non-religious fairly.”
I think you may be ascribing a worthy goal that they themselves really do not aspire to.
After all, they are the Freedom FROM Religion Foundation, not the Freedom FOR Religions Foundation. Even Ron Reagan, their spokesperson says he’s an atheist. So why would he and others have good will toward any religion?
“If the US Constitution permits the free exercise of one’s religion, must it always and only be conducted in private or behind closed doors?”
This describes the situation where I live and the restrictions placed here upon all religions, including mine.
I currently live overseas in one of the 8 countries named by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom,in their 2015 Report, as ones they recommended that the State Department add to its list of “countries of particular concern,” defined under law as countries where particularly severe violations of religious freedom are tolerated or perpetrated.
What we have seen here is that too much separation can easily morph into exclusion which leads to unfamiliarity and suspicion both within a society and on the part of a government.
The city I grew up in does a good job of celebrating different religious traditions in the city. And why not. The lights go up early: first for a massive celebration of Diwali, then for Christmas, and finally lighting of the Mennorah in a central park for Hannukah. Eid, Navrati, St George’s Day, St Patrick’s Day and various other religious festivals are also celebrated at the appropriate times during the year. Not just religious festivals either. There’s a Carribean carnival, Chinese new year, Bonfire night, Music festivals, Reading festivals, Arts festivals, History celebrations, food and beer… Not quite one long party. A lot more fun than ignoring everything though.