Legislating religion

[4gold]

Where did we get this notion that legislating religion is unconstitutional?

After the First Amendment was ratified, 8 of the 13 states levied and collected taxes to support an official state church. This practice continued until the early 1800s, not because the Courts struck it down, but because the People of the States no longer wanted to support an official state church.

Members of the first Congress that ratified the First Amendment voted to appoint and pay a chaplain to pray before each House.

Throughout the US's history, the courts have upheld religious laws, such as:

Congress may pay a chaplain to pray before the sessions, even if one denomination is clearly favored over all the others (Marsh v Chambers)

Taxpayers have no standing to sue against taxpayer-funded faith-based initiatives (Hein v Freedom from Religion)

Taxpayers have no standing to sue on government surpluses given to religious charities without regard to other secular charities (Valley Forge Christian College v Americans United for Separation of Church and State)

Also known as the two-reindeer rule, taxpayers may fund Nativity Scenes, so long as there are secular items displayed with the Nativity (Lynch v Donnelly)

Tax-exemptions for religious organizations are Constitutional (Walz v Tax Comm'n of the City of New York)

A law that "harmonizes with religious canons" is not inherently unconstitutional (McGowan v Maryland)

I could go on and on with historical examples, as well as Court precedent, but I think you get the idea. I have no idea where the concept that religious law is a violation of the First Amendment came from, but it lacks historical context, as well as judicial precedent.

In fact, I'd argue quite the opposite! The First Amendment allows for religious legislations, so long as the receptor of the law is an adult, and therefore not susceptible to religious indoctrination (Tilton v Richardson) or enforced on others via peer pressure (Abington v Schemp). The majority of First Amendment cases have dealt with schools, because children are more susceptible to religious indoctrination, and so the Courts have protected them from government-enforced religion. But adults are certainly not exempt from government-enforced religious laws!

The most common rebuttal I get to this argument is, "I won't enforce my morality on you, so don't enforce your morality on me." This is a fine argument, but it is completely unenforceable, unless we lived in an anarchy! If every federal spending bill had to be within the confines of the moral codes of all 300 million Americans, nothing would get done!

So my questions for debate are the following:

• What would be acceptable religious laws?

• What should the Constitutional limits on religious laws be?

• Even though religious laws are Constitutional, they are not necessary. Should we even legislate our religious values?

• How is anyone harmed by viewing a Ten Commandments display, or listening to a prayer before Congress, or seeing a Nativity scene?

• Would an ideal society be pluralistic or secular?

[micatala]

What would be acceptable religious laws?

What should the Constitutional limits on religious laws be?

I think I need a better definition on what you mean by a 'religious law.'

My general rule is to first consider whether there is any compelling non-religious rationale for a particular law. For example, there are clearly compelling non-religious rationale for prohibiting murder and theft. With respect to abortion, I think a case can be made either way, and I count that as a gray area. I don't believe there is any compelling non-religious rationale for prohibiting gay marriage exists.

Even though religious laws are Constitutional, they are not necessary. Should we even legislate our religious values?

I would say no. Legislation on values is pretty nebulous. Legislation should focus on pragmatic solutions to making society a better place. Now, certainly what is 'better' can be pretty subjective. Making it better for some to the detriment of others is not better in my book.

How is anyone harmed by viewing a Ten Commandments display, or listening to a prayer before Congress, or seeing a Nativity scene?

I will let others address what they feel is wrong with this. While I strongly believe in separation of church and state, I see no egregious harm in these in and of themselves. I am much more concerned with laws which enforce religious views on the entire society. The problem is that the displays are seen as a symbol for a larger effort to 'Christianize' society. It doesn't help that many of the people who are pushing these displays are also pushing laws which I think do violate the establishment clause and the larger principles upon which I think it is based.

Would an ideal society be pluralistic or secular?

Again, let's define these terms. I think a society can be both pluralistic and secular.



So far I have only investigated one of your court citations. THe Hein case. If I am reading this right, the standing issue is not just being taxpayer funded, but also whether the program is established by congress or by the executive branch. I also note that this is a very recent case.

[4gold]

I think I need a better definition on what you mean by a 'religious law.'

My general rule is to first consider whether there is any compelling non-religious rationale for a particular law. For example, there are clearly compelling non-religious rationale for prohibiting murder and theft. With respect to abortion, I think a case can be made either way, and I count that as a gray area. I don't believe there is any compelling non-religious rationale for prohibiting gay marriage exists.

I mean any law that clearly favors one religion over another (only Presbyterian prayers in Marsh v Chambers) or favors religion in general (tax-exemptions for religious organizations). I'm not talking about moral values (abortion, gay marriage, murder, or theft).

I would say no. Legislation on values is pretty nebulous. Legislation should focus on pragmatic solutions to making society a better place. Now, certainly what is 'better' can be pretty subjective. Making it better for some to the detriment of others is not better in my book.

I agree. Even though religious laws are Constitutional (IMO), I feel they are unnecessary. I believe there should be a wall of separation between Church and State, even though Lynch v Donnelly ruled that the wall is only a "useful metaphor" for what really occurs.

Again, let's define these terms. I think a society can be both pluralistic and secular.



So far I have only investigated one of your court citations. THe Hein case. If I am reading this right, the standing issue is not just being taxpayer funded, but also whether the program is established by congress or by the executive branch. I also note that this is a very recent case.

You are correct about the Hein case, except the Court also threatened to overturn the Flast decision, which deals with Congressional appropriations. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...", so the ruling that Executive appropriations do not violate the First Amendment is technically correct. The Court did not rule on whether collecting taxes for religious purposes was Constitutional or not.

My definition of pluralistic is that all religions are allowed to express their respective faiths openly and publicly on public property with publicly funded money (Nativity scenes, menorahs, Ten Commandments, etc.), so long as the money is not discriminated on a religious basis. My definition of a secular government is one that rejects any funding for any religious purposes whatsoever.

[micatala]

I think I need a better definition on what you mean by a 'religious law.'

My general rule is to first consider whether there is any compelling non-religious rationale for a particular law. For example, there are clearly compelling non-religious rationale for prohibiting murder and theft. With respect to abortion, I think a case can be made either way, and I count that as a gray area. I don't believe there is any compelling non-religious rationale for prohibiting gay marriage exists.

I mean any law that clearly favors one religion over another (only Presbyterian prayers in Marsh v Chambers) or favors religion in general (tax-exemptions for religious organizations). I'm not talking about moral values (abortion, gay marriage, murder, or theft).

My personal view is that I do not support the enactment of religious laws as defined here.

However, it is quite another matter whether they are constitutional, and I will investigate your links in further detail when I have more time.

My personal view is informed by my perception that many of the earliest European settlers came here precisely because of religious favoritism that in many cases grew into outright persecution. Certainly I think this experience informed the founders in their deliberations.

Again, let's define these terms. I think a society can be both pluralistic and secular.



So far I have only investigated one of your court citations. THe Hein case. If I am reading this right, the standing issue is not just being taxpayer funded, but also whether the program is established by congress or by the executive branch. I also note that this is a very recent case.

You are correct about the Hein case, except the Court also threatened to overturn the Flast decision, which deals with Congressional appropriations. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...", so the ruling that Executive appropriations do not violate the First Amendment is technically correct. The Court did not rule on whether collecting taxes for religious purposes was Constitutional or not.

My definition of pluralistic is that all religions are allowed to express their respective faiths openly and publicly on public property with publicly funded money (Nativity scenes, menorahs, Ten Commandments, etc.), so long as the money is not discriminated on a religious basis. My definition of a secular government is one that rejects any funding for any religious purposes whatsoever.

I will vote for 'mostly secular'. I would support expression of faith on public property, but am leery about using public money. I do not have confidence that the government could dispense the money in a way that would not be, or at least would not be perceived as, discriminatory.

[McCulloch]

Where did we get this notion that legislating religion is unconstitutional?

Perhaps from the supreme court. However, it is less important whether it is unconstitutional in the USA than whether religion and public policy should be separate.

The most common rebuttal I get to this argument is, "I won't enforce my morality on you, so don't enforce your morality on me." This is a fine argument, but it is completely unenforceable, unless we lived in an anarchy! If every federal spending bill had to be within the confines of the moral codes of all 300 million Americans, nothing would get done!

That is why we go through the sometimes difficult process of determining a common secular morality encoded in our constitutions an in our laws.

• What would be acceptable religious laws?

Religions should be, in my opinion treated under the law, no different than any other non profit organization. That would keep the courts out of deciding what is or is not a religion.

• What should the Constitutional limits on religious laws be?

Governments should not be regulating or spending money on religions. Governments should have to be rigorously neutral regarding the various religions in society.

• Even though religious laws are Constitutional, they are not necessary. Should we even legislate our religious values?

No. Our constitutions should be updated to reflect this. Legislation should be based on our common societal values, not religious ones.

• How is anyone harmed by viewing a Ten Commandments display, or listening to a prayer before Congress, or seeing a Nativity scene?

They are excluded. If the Ten Commandments are displayed in a court of justice, it symbolizes the false notion that our laws are based on religious values. It might even bias a jury against the non-religious. Why would a parliament want to open with a prayer? Would such a prayer represent all of the members of the parliament? Should you have to be a Christian or at the very minimum subject yourself to Christian rites to be elected? My wife was at a business meeting recently for an American based firm. They opened with a prayer. The prayer was not an inclusive general pan-religious prayer. It was a prayer to the Christian Father God invoking the Christian Jesus. In our country that is offensive. It excluded the Jewish, Hindu, Wiccan, Muslim and non-religious people who were present.

I have no problem with the Nativity scene, so long as the other religious traditions represented in society have equal access for their religious celebrations.

• Would an ideal society be pluralistic or secular?

Both. The government should be secular but the society itself should celebrate and tolerate various ethnic and religious traditions.

[4gold]

They are excluded. If the Ten Commandments are displayed in a court of justice, it symbolizes the false notion that our laws are based on religious values. It might even bias a jury against the non-religious. Why would a parliament want to open with a prayer? Would such a prayer represent all of the members of the parliament? Should you have to be a Christian or at the very minimum subject yourself to Christian rites to be elected? My wife was at a business meeting recently for an American based firm. They opened with a prayer. The prayer was not an inclusive general pan-religious prayer. It was a prayer to the Christian Father God invoking the Christian Jesus. In our country that is offensive. It excluded the Jewish, Hindu, Wiccan, Muslim and non-religious people who were present.

Are any of these injuries that can be established as standing for a lawsuit? I am hopeful that you can agree with me that someone's moral offense at an object is not a reason for a lawsuit, or else our Courts would be packed with lawsuits about what we find morally objectionable.

This month, a Hindu prayed before the US Senate. His religion represented none of the Senators. Yet, prayer before the Senate is still Constitutional.

If a Ten Commandments display did bias a jury member's decision or a judge's decision, then I would say that is grounds for a mistrial. But I would say that is no reason that the display should be remoed, any more than my interpretation of a Van Gogh's "Cafe Terrace at Night" in the lobby of a Court may influence my attitudes toward prostitutes.

Both. The government should be secular but the society itself should celebrate and tolerate various ethnic and religious traditions.

I agree with you that the government should be secular in its laws. However, I support the displays of religion on public property. There's just something so wonderful and awe-inspring to me about seeing Christmas displays in December, seeing tributes to Mormonism in Salt Lake City, and seeing the Menorah in City Hall in Brooklyn. I just love seeing America embrace its religious diversity, rather than reject it.

I support pluralistic displays in public, so long as each religion is afforded the same opportunities.

[r~]

4gold; fellow seekers and preachers:

I am taking the liberty of reposting my comments. We will at least have an image of the conversation, even though like all images, there will be some distortion, much information will be lost.

ItS
Peace
r~

[r~]

Man has two parts to his nature. The political side and the spiritual.

Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's, unto God that which is God's.

But there are those who's religion proclaims political truths. They say that if their religion is true, then it must not be excluded from the political realm.

They can proclaim whatever they want, but that does not make it true.

The truth is that only God has just authority to judge and condemn sins. The government does not.

ItS
Peace
r~

The truth is that only God has just authority to judge and condemn sins. The government does not.
ItS
Peace
r~

Whether just or not the state does take this authority, as it should.
There can only be one final authority in a state and that is a secular Government.
It is impossible for this leadership thought to ignore whatever religious information it holds when making its decisions.
The separation of Church and State cannot be done unless its leadership can shed its religious knowledge. It cannot.

Does this mean that there can never be a true separation of our two natures?

Regards
DL

Please tell me why any government should take the authority to condemn me because I eat meat or cow or pork, or commit any innumerable other sins. This denies my inalienable right of jihad. This is criminal no matter the Words or Belief.

crime:
The threat of denial of liberty.

jihad:
The peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness.

sin:
a transgression

It is not necessary to ignore religious information when making decisions, it is necessary only to know the difference between sin and crime. The difference is self-evident to me.

It is truly a crime that we are satisfied with politicians and judges and religious zealots when we should be requiring statesmen and justices and patriots.

patriot: (n) One that stands for the liberty of all.

ItS
Justice
r~

[r~]

They can proclaim whatever they want, but that does not make it true. The truth is that only God has just authority to judge and condemn sins. The government does not.

This is a truth to you, but not to others. Those who do not follow your god are not judged by your god, but by theirs.

I keen that the truth is not self-evident to all. This is how it has been since the beginning.

Let us instead look at this from the viewpoint of making laws In the Spirit of Truth instead of with Words of Belief.

There is but one god and god's judgment of sin is what it is; no matter the Belief. Yet self-evident truth is especially not self-evident to bullies, tyrants, skeptics, religious zealots or the unenlightened.

Let us celebrate our religious diversity, by all means. But let's keep our religions private, lest someone else's religious law take hold.

There is sufficient area between private and intrusive for peaceful regulation. There is a difference between celebration and threat. I like a good celebration.

ItS
Liberty
r~

jihad:
The peaceful and well-regulated pursuit of happiness.

Are you coming up with your own definition of Jihad? As far as I know Jihad involves two struggles, one within to search and conquer perfect faith, and one outward to take Islam to those that fail to acknowledge its "science". It doesn't specify if violence is exclusive to the concept.

Zealots are want to pervert the spirit with their twisted Words of belief and idolatry. Yet their Words do not ring true to those that can hear the harmony of the spirit. yes

My remarks were to speak more to the inability for an individual leader having the ability to ignore his religious teachings in governing.

Alas, the inability you speak of is indeed rampant.

Statesmen and justices and patriots are able to ignore any religious teachings that condemn sin as crime. Politicians and judges and zealots and tyrants are not.

Religious tyranny can be the only result of a religious regime that gets to power. History seems to bear witness to this statement.

Amen. It is also self-evident to me.

ItS
Peace
r~

[r~]

But politics involves the codification of society's morals. How can one separate his religious views from his political votes?

What religions call "moral violations", are in truth "sins". A sin is not the same as a crime.

In 1776, our forefathers codified society's morals very eloquently. This precedent is given authority by the spirit of truth and can never be justly repealed by Words; no matter the source.

We hold these truths to be self evident. This is our moral compass.

Denial of liberty is a crime. Any government that denies liberty forfeits just authority to govern. In turn, this grants the People just authority to rebel.

Not even government officials are immune from prosecution or impeachment. A crime is a crime; even if it is committed in the name of government; even if it is committed in the name of god or morals.

If you threaten liberty, you forfeit liberty. The balance of liberty can only be maintained by regulation. This is called justice. Law and Order is not the same as justice, and prohibition is not the same as regulation. Law and order and prohibition and denial of liberty only lead to strife and greater crime.

Alas, the tyrants and zealots hijacked our government and held US hostage from its inception. Yet I wonder if now might be a good time to expel the zealots from power. After all, it is a new millenium and the spirit has been reborn.


ItS
Peace
r~