A picture is worth a thousand words:
The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the right to free exercise of religion and the right to freedom of speech.
The First Amendment prohibits an official national church.
Nowhere does it guarantee the right not to see other people's beliefs.
Nowhere does it guarantee atheists the right not to see religious expression.
Nowhere does it mandate civic atheism.
Nowhere does it prohibit prayer or religious expression in civic life.
The First Amendment is our charter of freedom. It explicitly prohibits government censorship of religious expression.
This wall in a school auditorium-- this prayer under a tarp-- is a metaphor for your rights under mandatory civic atheism.
It is court-ordered censorship of religious expression.
It's our First Amendment, under a tarp.
 |
The prayer mural on the wall of the auditorium in Cranston West High School in Rhode Island. The prayer is under the tarp, by federal court order. |
The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the right to free exercise of religion and the right to freedom of speech.
The First Amendment prohibits an official national church.
Nowhere does it guarantee the right not to see other people's beliefs.
Nowhere does it guarantee atheists the right not to see religious expression.
Nowhere does it mandate civic atheism.
Nowhere does it prohibit prayer or religious expression in civic life.
The First Amendment is our charter of freedom. It explicitly prohibits government censorship of religious expression.
This wall in a school auditorium-- this prayer under a tarp-- is a metaphor for your rights under mandatory civic atheism.
It is court-ordered censorship of religious expression.
It's our First Amendment, under a tarp.
The picture says it all.
ReplyDeleteThey cannot manage corruption and foreign dabbling in an export economy, the intricacies of Mexican border issue, drug 'wars'/prohibition, or help alleviate energy crises by rule.
Too busy swinging golf clubs and attending galas.
But a PRAYER BANNER!
Now there's a high priority project the federal Justices can really sink their teeth into.
Such a feel good one too! Since the implementation of the 'secular tarp' the general good will of the folks in Cranston has increased. They are much happier about the economy, wars etc now that the local HS prayer banner is under a tarp by Federal Caveat.
Just plain STUPID all around.
My thoughts...
But really, the picture says it all.
I know this may sound silly, but this kind of thing makes me want to retreat into nostalgia.
It makes me recall the United States I visited as a boy, and young man attending HS in. Of the years after I was first married and we worked in and travelled through parts of the USA.
It was not a perfect place, but it did have an allure that was unique, even as an adult.
There was a general enthusiasm and hope, and that combined with the great beauty of the place was wonderful. It was a free place.
I used to LOVE going to the States as a kid. I enjoyed immensely it as a young man. I like it now.
But the truth is that the allure has greatly diminished.
Not gone entirely, but the word I would use is: Suppressed. Held under. Kept down.
I still enjoy visiting the States these days, and have my favourite haunts in the cities that I see more than once a year.
But, something has changed in the air.
Since 9/11...and again since Obama.
Maybe it is just me getting old, but it feels VERY different to me there these days.
The modern polarity and broad divisions were not manifested in the same way.
There was more optimism and excitement in the past, even during hard times.
Certainly there seems to be less freedoms.
There was a lot less people in prison, for example. Things were more expensivem but you had more choices.
There was a lot less restrictions etc.
And, there was no shortage of local custom and colour. Religion, fashion, accent, food and all.
Old Florida & SoCal of the 70's and early 80's. Lake Michigan in the 70's and 80's. Oahu in the 80's. New England in the late 80's early 90's.
....
I had some really good times in the States and look forward to many more.
I would hate to see all that fun and culture under the 'secular tarp'.
I have a feeling ordinary Americans will not let it get that far.
you see, being a neighbour, I feel I have a good notion as to their inclinations in such matters ;)
The Government is not a person. The Government is not a religion. The government is not a private entity. The first amendment does not grant the government the right to free speech, it limits government speech to protect our rights to worship or not worship as we see fit.
ReplyDeleteAn unadorned wall is not an atheist symbol, it’s a wall.
-KW
@anon:
ReplyDelete> An unadorned wall is not an
> atheist symbol, it’s a wall.
You make your point very eloquently.
An unadorned wall (in the context of your remarks) is indeed a wall. Similarly, the uniform of a disgraced colonel from which all military insignia has been stripped is still a uniform; a once-lushly-forested mountain denuded by clear-cutting is still a mountain; and the city of Detroit, a decayed and gutted shell of its former wealth and industrial might, is still the city of Detroit.
An unadorned wall from which a prayer mural has been removed by state coercion is, among other things, simply a wall. But it is also much more: it is a decidedly religious symbol. It stands quite clearly for the religious tyranny of secularist government over the people, whom government is purportedly of, and by, and for.
Context matters. Should the prayer mural at Cranston West High School be ultimately removed, the wall upon which it hung will not be "just a wall".
I get it Kent; you prefer your walls with state sponsored religious messages, and feel a great loss when messages you endorse are removed. Feel free to adorn your walls with religious messages all you want and I will help you defend your right to do so as vigorously as I oppose the prayer banner
DeleteIn my opinion you have the issue of tyranny backwards. Removal of the prayer banner prevents the tyranny of the majority who think it is perfectly acceptable to use their majority to have the government display religious messages to a captive audience of impressionable children that are required by law to attend. That is simply not fair to the children and parents who have other religious values. Our Constitution protects our right to worship or not worship as we see fit. Given many children’s desperate desire to fit in, even subtle displays that favor one, or any, religion in a school is unwelcome religious influence for many. Schools should stick to physics and leave metaphysics and opinions on the divine to churches and parents.
-KW
Actually teaching Metaphysics would be great as a comprehensive elective course, it’s when it’s a Ra-RA banner in the auditorium that it becomes problematical.
Delete-KW
@Anonymous/KW:
Delete> I get it Kent; you prefer your walls
> with state sponsored religious messages...
You badly miss the point. I prefer that American citizens (from whom government derives its just powers) be free to adorn the walls of their educational institutions with religious messages if the majority so chooses -- with the proviso that the messages are neither coercive nor sectarian.
> ...and feel a great loss when
> messages you endorse are removed.
It is a loss -- a loss of liberty not just for me, but for all Americans.
I’m mindful of the sensitivities of children, and I'm aware (as I've mentioned in a prior comment on a separate thread) that even strongly principled Christian people (like J. Gresham Machen, in the Protestant tradition) have expressed concerns about religious expression in public schools. But to argue that the suppression of such expression was the founders' vision for our country is simply ridiculous, and it's flatly denied by the historical evidence.
> Schools should stick to physics
> and leave metaphysics and opinions
> on the divine to churches and parents.
By "should", I assume you mean "ought to". Your statement is, of course, blatantly metaphysical. You seem to assume that only the pro-mural crowd is invoking metaphysics, but that's not true. The challenging of the prayer mural was metaphysically motivated. The case was decided judicially on metaphysical grounds, and the mandate to remove the mural is an imposition of metaphysical principle.
Legislative and judicial action must always, by their very natures, be metaphysically oriented. Likewise with education: it always has a metaphysical basis.
(As an aside, part of the genius of the American system is that in a prevailingly Christian society, we no longer worry about holy wars, lethally violent doctrinal disputes, tyrannical state churches, or--to pick just one of many past atrocities--the defenestration of religious emissaries. Evils like these were once commonplace, before the founding of the USA. We are beneficiaries of our founders’ collective genius, which, in seeking to avoid past evils, leaned heavily upon Christian metaphysics for guidance.)
The question then becomes, with respect to public education in general, and Cranston West High School in particular: "Whose metaphysical views will be given free expression?" To the educational community of Cranston West, a federal judge says, "Not yours!"
The judge's ruling represents a loss of liberty, not just for citizens in Cranston West's school district, but for all Americans. And it represents a creeping tyranny that must be halted--and reversed--if our great country is to remain free.
We the people have free speech not a Gov BLD.
ReplyDeleteBeing of French origin, this reminds me of Molière's Tartuffe saying:
ReplyDeletePrenez ce mouchoir et cachez-moi ce sein que je ne saurais voir...
To me, atheists are a bunch of Tartuffes!
Yes, the picture says it all! It's a triumph of the ideals on which the United States was founded.
ReplyDeleteIt says that for our people to continue to be as diversely and passionately religious as they are, the government must remain neutral. Religiously neutral either means representing every faith, or representing no faith. Since there isn't room to represent every American religion on the wall of the Cranston gymnasium, they chose to represent none.
That picture represents an overwhelming victory for religious freedom in the United States in the face of extreme social pressure to promote the Christianity of the current majority.
Religious freedom always feels like a sacrifice to those who hold (and vigorously defend) the majority view. Too bad - time to grow up to the demands of advanced citizenship. Our government is designed to allow government selected by the majority while attempting to protect its citizens from the tyranny of the majority.
Hooray for America and hats off to the brave girl who made such sacrifice to remind us what religious freedom really means.
@RickK:
Delete> Yes, the picture says it all!
> It's a triumph of the ideals
> on which the United States was
> founded.
You appeal to the founding ideals of this country. But you ignore the fact that religious references, and religious endorsements, are pervasive in the government-sponsored artifacts (memorials, artwork of various kinds, etc) of the founding era, and the centuries that followed. (Michael made this point in previous posts, and a simple walk around Washington DC, with your eyes open, is sufficient to prove it.)
Why is that our founders frequently and unabashedly acknowledged God? The answer is clear: Because the founders' understanding of "neutrality" were quite different from yours.
> Religiously neutral either means representing
> every faith, or representing no faith.
> Since there isn't room to represent
> every American religion on the wall
> of the Cranston gymnasium, they chose to
> represent none.
The prevailing view of the founders was obviously not neutral. Perhaps there was room in our capitals to represent all religions. But the founders (speaking very generally) only chose to acknowledge one: Christianity.
“But the founders (speaking very generally) only chose to acknowledge one: Christianity.”
DeleteYou’re speaking so generally that it’s not true, with the exception bible verses carved in monuments, the vast majority if not all of Washington’s religious artifacts are either parts of displays that feature multiple religious heritages, or were, by the artists own admissions, made intentionally vague to avoid sending outright religious messages. The artists of the vast majority of these works where sensitive to the notion of separation and intentional subtle in their work. Walk around Washington for a weekend and you might catch a glimpse of one or two of these artifacts without a guide-book, but it would be awfully hard to argue that there’s any sort of overt intentional Christian theme.
-KW
The reference to this raw act of censorship as "freedom" is Orwellian.
DeleteThis is mandatory civic atheism, enforced by court order. It has no basis in the Constitution, and is in fact prohibited by the Constitution, which prohibits government censorship of religious expression.
We need widespread civil disobedience, and political action to remove from office and from the bench the bastards who are doing this. And we need prayer for our country.
Michael,
DeleteYou're meschugge. Federal court judges, like you, have tenure. If you're suggesting that Federal court judges should be removed (presumably by impeachment by Congress and the Senate) for making decisions that you disagree with, then what's to stop someone who is scientifically literate (unlike you) insisting that your faculty should sack you for your frequent nonsensical pronouncements on science and philosophy?
"(Michael made this point in previous posts, and a simple walk around Washington DC, with your eyes open, is sufficient to prove it.)"
DeleteMichael's "point" was vastly overstated. Many of the references to the "ten commandments" he found were actually references to the Bill of Rights - the reference found in the National Archives for example (look up the background of the relief). Second, the references that are religious are almost all displayed in a manner that makes Moses coequal with various other alleged lawgivers from history. It doesn't seem like it is any kind of endorsement of the Bible to have Moses being given equal time with Mohammed, John Marshall, and Napoleon.
As an aside, one of the references to Moses was crafted in a secular manner and with a little joke on the part of the sculptor. First, Moses is holding the tablets showing only the commandments with no religious content - the commandments against murder, theft, and so on. Second, Moses' beard covers up the "Do not" in each commandment that is displayed, leaving only the Hebrew text for "murder", "steal", and "covet".
"The reference to this raw act of censorship as "freedom" is Orwellian."
DeleteName the specific person who is being censored. Note: government is not a person.
Religious neutrality does not equal "civic atheism." This is a simple point; try to grasp it.
ReplyDelete"Religious neutrality" is not required by the Constitution and not mentioned in the Constitution.
DeleteReligious neutrality is not even possible. We cannot as a practical matter express all possible religious views in civic life, and exclusion of religious expression is not neutral-- it's civic atheism.
That's why the founders didn't put "religious neutrality" in the Constitution.
They prohibited a National Established Church (to protect State Established Churches), and they prohibited the government from censoring religious exercise.
The judge's act is a clear violation of the Free Exercise clause. It has no basis in the Constitution or in statutory law.
@KW:
ReplyDelete"...it’s when it’s a Ra-RA banner in the auditorium that it becomes problematical."
I see. So only references to Christianity that are positive are legal. If the banner presented Christianity in a neutral or negative manner, you'd have no problem with it.
Have you objected to federal funding for art that desecrates Christian artifacts-- a crucifix in urine, a pornographic painting of the Virgin Mary?
You. are. a. bigot.
"So only references to Christianity that are positive are legal."
DeleteNo. Disparaging references made by the government would violate the Lemon test.
But feel free to feel persecuted like the good little Taliban member you are.
Michael,
DeleteWhy do you think that atheists should police artwork that's insulting to Christianity? You take great pleasure in noting that American atheists make up less than 5% of the population, so that means that Christians are at least 16 times more likely to see offensive artwork than atheists. By the time an atheist sees an offensive artwork, many more Christians would have seen it and taken action.
Also the interpretation of artwork isn't for the faint hearted. 'Piss Christ', for example, has been reviewed by an art critic nun as not being blasphemous but criticizing contemporary use of Christ in society. How can an atheist be expected to decide whether an artwork is insulting to a religion he doesn't accept as true? That's the job of the believers.
Correction:
ReplyDelete"I see. So only references to Christianity that are positive are illegal."
For those who might be interested, a book titled The United States A Christian Nation, by former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court David J. Brewer, is available online in several formats here. It consists of three addresses given to Haverford College students ca. 1905.
ReplyDeleteJustice Brewer wrote the opinion of the unanimous court in its 1892 decision of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, which is often cited as an example of judicial recognition of America's Christian origins.
The interesting thing about the Church of the Holy Trinity opinion is that Brewer's opinion spends much of its time discussing the original colony charters issued by the crown, which display a government sponsored religiousity that the founders were reacting against when they drafted their religious liberty statutes and eventually the U.S. Constitution.
DeleteAfter a glancing nod towards the U.S. Constitution, he then leaps to a select few state constitutions. It s a pretty thin case for the Christian nature of the nation.
@Anonymous:
DeleteThe opinion was not merely Brewers'; it was the unanimous opinion of the court.
What you said:
After a glancing nod towards the U.S. Constitution, he then leaps to a select few state constitutions. It's a pretty thin case for the Christian nature of the nation.
(The "select few" explicitly discussed are: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Delaware.)
But before even getting into a "select few" specifics, Brewer, speaking for the court, writes:
If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states [in the year 1892] contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community.
There may be a case here that's "pretty thin", but I don't think it's the court's.
"The opinion was not merely Brewers'; it was the unanimous opinion of the court."
DeleteDid anyone say it wasn't? Black's opinion in Everson was also unanimous, but according to the hysteria on the religious right that opinion was the sole progeny of a Klansman.
"(The "select few" explicitly discussed are: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Delaware.)"
Out of forty-four states in existence at the time, he picked six. That's a pretty select few.
"If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states [in the year 1892] contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community."
Yet he only cites six. And when one looks at the actual state constitutions in effect today, the evidence is pretty weak. Most make only a perfunctory reference to God in their preamble, and it is a vague reference to a nonspecific deity in all of them. Some references are clearly unenforceable - some states have religious tests for office written into their constitutions. It is vastly overstating the case to say the state constitutions are evidence of the "Christian" nature of the nation.
"There may be a case here that's "pretty thin", but I don't think it's the court's."
Arguing that the nation is religious and that religion is reflected in its governmental structure is a pretty thin case.
@Anonymous:
Delete> Did anyone say [Brewer's opinion] wasn't
> [the unanimous opinion of the court]?
No. But I wanted to preemptively address a possible supposition that Justice Brewer was a wild-eyed edge case, speaking only for himself, or for some thin majority of the justices. All the justices endorsed Brewers' opinion, which leads me to believe that none of them would endorse your opinion of the role of Christianity in the founding of our national government. I hasten to add that a unanimous opinion does not make it a correct opinion; even a unanimous court can render an erroneous judgment. But it seems incontrovertible that their opinion, at that point in time (1892), is logically inconsistent with your present opinion.
Black's opinion in Everson is irrelevant to my argument. To the extent that the so-called "religious right" appeals to Justice Black's Ku Klux Klan connections in calling the Everson verdict into question, I would have to disagree; that objection sounds like an obvious case of ad hominem, or the genetic fallacy.
@Anonymous:
Delete> Out of forty-four states in existence
> at the time, he picked six. That's a
> pretty select few.
6 out of 44 is roughly 14% of the states. Unless Brewer's examples were cherry-picked, it seems like a reasonable sampling, from the standpoint of statistical significance. In any case, Justice Brewer appeals generally to all 44 state constitutions. Presumably he was speaking as one who was familiar with them all. The alternatives are that he and all of his fellow justices were speaking from ignorance, or from intentional deceit. The onus would be on you, Anonymous, to make that case.
To repeat: It's your argument that is thin, not the justices' argument in Church of the Holy Trinity.
@Anonymous:
DeleteYou wrote:
And when one looks at the actual state constitutions in effect today, the evidence is pretty weak. Most make only a perfunctory reference to God in their preamble, and it is a vague reference to a nonspecific deity in all of them. Some references are clearly unenforceable - some states have religious tests for office written into their constitutions. It is vastly overstating the case to say the state constitutions are evidence of the "Christian" nature of the nation.
There are several questions to consider here:
1) Was the United States of America, in its founding, influenced by Christianity, and if so, to what extent?
2) How did the nation view itself with respect to Christianity in 1892? To what extent had that view changed since the founding? (Since we've been discussing the Church of the Holy Trinity case from 1892, I arbitrarily choose that as a an intermediate point.)
3) How does the nation presently view itself with respect to Christianity? To what extent has that view changed since 1787 (when the Constitution was ratified)? Since 1892? Have any official changes (i.e. federal law) been consistent with the intention of the founders? To what extent are any changes justified, or unjustified?
I do not here propose to answer any of these questions. I'm simply pointing out that the role of Christianity in our federal government can be viewed from various historical perspectives, and from a present perspective. In my opinion, given my present knowledge, I believe your historical perspective is seriously flawed. And while I acknowledge that your assessment of the current situation is somewhat accurate (e.g. "Some references [to deity] are clearly unenforceable - some states have religious tests for office written into their constitutions.”), I argue that our current state of affairs is emphatically not what the founders intended, and actually represents regress, not progress.
@Kent
DeleteThe Constitution is less than 6000 words. It was not meant to be a complete set of dogmatic commandments for every future eventuality. It was specifically designed to change as the U.S. society changed. The court system was intended to provide the detailed interpretation and the future adaptability.
We now have a much more diverse country, with much greater awareness of religious and cultural differences. Since 1787 we have experienced the scientific revolution, the discovery of evolution, of planetary formation, determined the scale of the universe and the age of the Earth. We have abolished slavery, disproved all manner of supernatural phenomena, and have learned to look at the Bible through the methods of higher criticism.
If Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Washington were alive today, knowing what we know now, do you honestly think they would side with Cranston's desire to keep an 8-foot Christian prayer in the public school gym?
Much has changed since 1787, and the Constitution is operating as designed in adapting to that change.
Sure, we could continue to operate with the assumption that everyone who matters in the country is a Christian, and just let the religious majority maintain their symbols throughout the public institutions. But that's not how the founders intended our country to operate.
The Cranston decision is an example of the Constitution operating as intended.
And yes, every decision will make someone unhappy. Today, that's you and Michael. Tomorrow's a new day and an opportunity to move on.
@RickK:
ReplyDelete> The Constitution is less than 6000 words.
> It was not meant to be a complete set of
> dogmatic commandments for every future
> eventuality. It was specifically designed to
> change as the U.S. society changed.
Clearly, the Constitution is a set of commandments: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress...”; “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year...”; “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”; etc. (emphasis mine)
Is it a “complete” set of commandments, in the sense that the commandments might never need to be added to, subtracted from, or otherwise clarified? The framers’ ratification of the Constitution implies that they believed it was sufficiently comprehensive for present and future purposes, given their current state of knowledge, and given the constraints within which they had to work (e.g. time constraints; limits of wisdom, foresight, and intelligence; etc.). Ratification did not signal complete agreement, nor was it indicative of unreserved support by all the framers. Again, the idea of sufficiency is germane: there was sufficient agreement, and sufficient support.
I am not aware of any statements by the framers themselves to the effect that the Constitution was perfect, in the sense that it was both complete (for present and future purposes) and without error. The framers obviously recognized that the set of commandments was potentially imperfect. The existence of Article V proves this point, since it makes provision (within limits) for change.
Your use of the adjective dogmatic is equivocal. If by dogmatic you mean “authoritative and unchallengeable, in a legal sense”, then I think we are in agreement. If perchance you mean (as it sometimes seems to connote informally) “arbitrarily or capriciously crafted, and thus not always binding”, then I strongly disagree.
> The court system was intended to
> provide the detailed interpretation
> and the future adaptability.
It goes without saying that to comply with Article III, the judiciary must engage in “detailed interpretation”. But the Constitution says nothing explicitly about what constitutes legitimate or illegitimate interpretation. Hence our current debate between “originalism” and the so-called “Living Constitution” approaches to interpretation. In general, history is on the side of the originalists; the framers would have had little use for a “Living Constitution”.
As to “future adaptability”, a more correct phrase would be “future application”. Nothing in the Constitution grants the judiciary any authority to adapt the Constitution. Adaptation (in the normal sense of that word) necessarily implies modification, and the only lawful means of changing the Constitution are delineated in Article V. On the other hand, a legitimate function of the federal judiciary is to apply the Constitution, that is, to honor what the Constitution says, whether explicitly or by necessary inference, in deciding the various cases that come before it. The judiciary may indeed recognize that adaptation is necessary or desired, but, if the judiciary is to remain within its constitutionally prescribed bounds, it must leave adaptation to the legislative branch.
@Kent:
ReplyDeleteBeautifully said.