From The New York Times we have Stanley Fish writing "Rick Santorum Isn’t Crazy". I will do the first three paragraphs of a longish OpEd:
Media pundits have been beating up on Rick Santorum for saying that the assertion of an absolute separation of church and state makes him want to throw up, for attacking John F. Kennedy’s pledge to be “a president whose religious views are his own private affair” and for declaring that “the idea that the church can have no influence in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and visions of our country.”And on it goes from there. The law seems to meander over the field and there is no "wall of separation", as such.
In response, commentators have advised Santorum to read the Constitution, urged him to become familiar with the pronouncements of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and chastised him for “bashing … the Constitution’s mandate that there should be separation between church and state.”
Well, if that’s the Constitution’s mandate, I guess a number of Supreme Court justices and A-list legal academics have somehow missed the message. In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), Justice William Rehnquist called the “wall of separation” a “metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging” and “should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” Justice Potter Stewart frequently complained that decisions based on a doctrine of strict separation display a hostility to religion and threaten to establish a “religion of secularism.” Stewart was fond of citing Justice William O. Douglas’s pronouncement in Zorach v. Clauson (1952) that “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being.” Similar sentiments have been expressed by Justices Warren E. Burger, Byron White, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
As for myself, I believer that no religion, or sect, or view of how man came to be man, should be allowed to dominate and suppress other views. As to leaving one's views outside the marketplace of ideas, I just don't yet know how one would do that.
Hat tip to my Brother, Lance.
Regards — Cliff
6 comments:
Lost in the righties' beatification of Santorum for his insults and specious rhetoric is the original truth that Kennedy's words neither suggested that people of religion or their ideals stay out of the public square. That the defense of all men and women of all religions being given equal respect would be attacked by a person waving their particular religion like a rhetorical battle flag is anathema to these legal opinions you cite. Simple truth is that Santorum is espousing certain religions take a dominant position of power against others, and this is, to our Constitution and I should hope to our collective sense of right, completely wrong.
This whole arena for discussion is prompted by the fact that it is an election year and all of the hopefuls are trying their best to "make a statement" that will gain them traction and a superiority.
The problem with this particular exercise is that in spite of many valiant efforts to erect a wall, none exists today except in the mind of a few extremists on the issue. Frankly, it simply cannot exist. You can no more erect a wall between a person's religious beliefs (and that includes NOT believing in any religion) and their cognitive behavior. The decisions one makes are necessarily influenced by one's held beliefs, for better or for worse. Folks who are able to place their religious beliefs in a context that accommodates other factors bearing on a course of action or thought are less apt to become or appear a religious zealot. BUT, what you are taught to believe AFFECTS what and how you think and react.
You can no more erect a wall between religious belief and government than you can erect a similar impenetrable wall between one's right and left brain.
I personally regard these kinds of mental exercises as being on the same level of counting the number of angels that one can place on the head of a pin.
Neal,
You just made the perfect arguement for incorporating Sharia Law into US jurisprudence.
I on the other hand, am willing to let my neighbor, put aside his prayer rug and come to the town hall to discuss water rates. Partly, because I know if I get caught stealing water, I get to keep both my hands.
The Founders, under Masonic influence, clearly understood that it is vital to keep idolatry out of civic business.
Let's just all get with the program and worship money, eh?
My point, badly stated, is that government decree cannot separate the impact of religious belief in one's mind...and therefore.....across groups in society. To simply say by some mandate that a wall exists is purely rhetoric and is the things of which dictatorships are made.
Though I am of the Christian persuasion, and therefore opposed to the implementation of Sharia in the US, I can see the potential for a nation under God to become a nation under Mohammed. The nature and characteristics of populations change and with those changes, the laws and mores by which a society regulates itself. Currently, the Muslims are not quite as preoccupied with contraception as are we...and thus...their birthrates are much, much greater. Why go to war with us over religion...they'll simply outnumber us...and using our system...out vote us.....and then implement THEIR system. But at that point, the Constitution will no longer be in play...so separation of church and state will be purely fanciful.
I would posit that the whole issue of religion in the context of this discussion is rendered pretty much moot as the majority of American society has changed its worship habits from God to gold....even the churches are in essence worshiping money.....just ask a prudential or stewardship committee.....
I think too that it is important to make the distinction between "Church" and "religious belief." I think the Fathers recognized the dangers of allowing Church into government of the people..given the history of English government and the Holy Roman Empire. But nobody said that one couldn't hold religious beliefs...and that was the point that JFK made over his Catholicism.
But then...these days....nobody wants to delve into fine points...its all so much more fun to elevate it to broad strokes and be done with it.....
Mostly Yes. I too worry about the Constitution, especially privacy and civil liberties.
Neal,
It is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and 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 (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), 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.
Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.
Wake Forest University recently 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
Post a Comment