The scope of the establishment clause

[McCulloch]

You believe that only a specific denomination can be established.

Yes.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

East of Eden has expressed the opinion that this clause is limited to the establishment of a specific denomination. In his view, it would be wrong for Congress to establish Episcopalianism, but not wrong for the various branches of the government of the USA to establish Christianity. It is my view that the establishment clause creates the USA as a secular nation not as a non-denominational Christian nation.

Questions for debate: Is there any support for such a view by the courts, legal precedent, or constitutional experts?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

I kinda agree, at least on principle, but I also see an alternate perspective...

I would partially agree. In my view, people on both sides of this "culture battle" need to take a deep breath and distinguish what is important from what is relatively trivial.

Agreed - to a degree. What is trivial to one can be of great import to others. In such subjective measures I would contend the government not introduce divisive religious propaganda.

It really should not be a big deal for people to swear oaths in court or congress on the Bible...

What if you, a Christian, were required to swear an oath on the Koran? Just as some folks revere the Bible, there are those of us who revile it for causing so much divisiveness and discord among humans.

There's also the issue of using alternate texts, and how juries may perceive such. Where Christians are the majority, I think it's folly to say they won't notice when someone swears to a god not of the Christian variety, and make potentially erroneous conclusions based on such.

or to have Moses on the SCOTUS building
(*See following caveats by micatala.)

Would you be willing to accept Satan on that building? There's many Satanists in America, don't they deserve a voice?

or to have Christmas stamps.
(*See following caveats by micatala.)

I'm cool with that, but do question the wisdom of using government authority to promote religion, even if it's only a stamp.

I understand the symbolism might be upsetting to some, but as long as no infringement on freedoms or implementation of religion as policy is taking place, I don't see that there is a problem.

Public funds. Public officials taking time to deal with what religion gets what favors. There's more to it than just enacting a policy.

Some of the symbolism is part of our history and if it is not a reflection of "who we are" in a universal sense, it is a reflection of who some of us are and the history of how we got here as a nation.

My concern is a glossing over of the religious oppressions (many of which still exist) in "getting here".

(*caveat)
I would say if we allow such symbolism, we should be tolerant of a variety of symbols. Ideally, such symbolism would be offered in a positive and respectful fashion, not as an attempt to denigrate or degrade others or to manipulate people or government entities or officials.

As above, I prefer a "warts and all approach". History is chock full of religious folks denying their own religion's misdeeds.

(*caveat)
If we allow a depiction of "Moses the Lawgiver" at the capital, we really should also consider symbolism from other religions and non-religious symbolism.

Problem is as soon as you do this there'll be those that raise a ruckus about the "other religion". I do agree your policy here is a good one, but the reality may not be so clear-cut. It has the potential of wasting public funds just trying to sort out what religion deserves what symbols.

(*caveat)
In fact, I suppose we do when we use "lady liberty and the scales of justice" as a symbol which goes back to Themis of ancient Greece. We could consider symbols of Roman Law or even the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the Napoleonic Code, even if they had no direct effect on our constittution. We might incorporate Humanist symbolism.

Plenty fair, and it is refreshing to see a Christian willing to concede certain symbolism for the greater good.

so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.

To me, the symbolism of Moses on the SCOTUS building does not violate the bolded principle.

Moses is famous for that whole Ten Commandments deal.

When one declares their laws are handed down by God, that is a religious issue, plain and simple. It promotes a particular religion above the fact that no evidence exists to show such laws were actually handed down by this particular god (or any god).

On the other hand, things like bans on gay marriage, laws saying atheists cannot hold certain offices (which I believe is being debated elsewhere on the forum), and perhaps even in a small way bans on alcohol sales on Sunday would be violations of the intent and letter of the Establishment Clause, in my view.

Agreed.

[micatala]

From Post 10:

I kinda agree, at least on principle, but I also see an alternate perspective...

I would partially agree. In my view, people on both sides of this "culture battle" need to take a deep breath and distinguish what is important from what is relatively trivial.

Agreed - to a degree. What is trivial to one can be of great import to others. In such subjective measures I would contend the government not introduce divisive religious propaganda.

I agree people can have different perspectives. I also agree perceptions can be largely subjective. For example, you use the words "divisive religious propaganda." I would ask how a depiction of Moses is "divisive religious propaganda."

I will also admit my bias by saying I think some on both sides of the issue go way overboard in what they describe as "divisive." It is within their power to choose not to do so, and I think they should in order to promote comity, civility, and the greater good. Pat Robertson and Michael Newdow both would serve the pubic interest better if they did not seek to demonize people of other views.

It really should not be a big deal for people to swear oaths in court or congress on the Bible...

What if you, a Christian, were required to swear an oath on the Koran? Just as some folks revere the Bible, there are those of us who revile it for causing so much divisiveness and discord among humans.

Good example. I would say we should give people the option. I know one MN congressman used a Koran for his swearing in. I would differentiate between a situation where the requirement is intentional and coercive and one where it is simply tradition. I think what we have now is the latter. If people want to suggest changing the tradition or allowing exceptions, that is fine, but I don't think people should depict what is being done out of tradition as some sort of intentional oppression. It's not.

There's also the issue of using alternate texts, and how juries may perceive such. Where Christians are the majority, I think it's folly to say they won't notice when someone swears to a god not of the Christian variety, and make potentially erroneous conclusions based on such.

Probably true, but there is a difference between what the government does and the perceptions and reactions individuals have. You cannot control the fact that some people are going to view atheists, or liberals, or evangelicals, or whatever, negatively. Being citizen and having freedom does not make you immune to people disagreeing or expressing negative views about you.

or to have Moses on the SCOTUS building
(*See following caveats by micatala.)

Would you be willing to accept Satan on that building? There's many Satanists in America, don't they deserve a voice?

How has Satan or Satanism been involved in the legal traditions of this or any other country?

I understand the symbolism might be upsetting to some, but as long as no infringement on freedoms or implementation of religion as policy is taking place, I don't see that there is a problem.

Public funds. Public officials taking time to deal with what religion gets what favors. There's more to it than just enacting a policy.

Well, if we are paying for Moses to be on the SCOTUS building and we decide not to do that, would we put some other artwork up or leave it blank? If you are going to spend the money anyway I frankly don't see that you need to assiduously exclude any and every religious symbol. Should we not spend public funds on depections of Lady Justice? How about Lady Liberty? Aren't we being sexist in doing so? Aren't we being paganistic in doing so?

Some of the symbolism is part of our history and if it is not a reflection of "who we are" in a universal sense, it is a reflection of who some of us are and the history of how we got here as a nation.

My concern is a glossing over of the religious oppressions (many of which still exist) in "getting here".

A good point. In some states there has been controversy over depictions of white men conquering, killing, etc. Native Americans in state government venues. That this happened is an undeniable part of our history. SHould we remove such displays? Some would say yes as they feel what did happen was wrong and should not have happened. Some would say no because, however wrong it was, it was reality, and perhaps we can learn something by reflecting on it. A few would probably even say they should be kept because they think what happend was a good thing. The latter are arguably being intentionally divisive.

Is the display in and of itself divisive or not?

(*caveat)
I would say if we allow such symbolism, we should be tolerant of a variety of symbols. Ideally, such symbolism would be offered in a positive and respectful fashion, not as an attempt to denigrate or degrade others or to manipulate people or government entities or officials.

As above, I prefer a "warts and all approach". History is chock full of religious folks denying their own religion's misdeeds.

I have no problem with accurate historical depictions. This should certainly happen in a history class, even if we don't take the time to create such nuanced symbols in architecture.

(*caveat)
If we allow a depiction of "Moses the Lawgiver" at the capital, we really should also consider symbolism from other religions and non-religious symbolism.

Problem is as soon as you do this there'll be those that raise a ruckus about the "other religion". I do agree your policy here is a good one, but the reality may not be so clear-cut. It has the potential of wasting public funds just trying to sort out what religion deserves what symbols.

Again, why should we let those who want to raise a ruckus rule the roost. Let them raise their ruckus. We can acknowledge their point of view without kowtowing to it by buckling under every time someone gets their shorts in a bunch.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12:

>I'd like to remind folks I'm not completely opposed to micatala's general argument, just some of the finer points<

I agree people can have different perspectives. I also agree perceptions can be largely subjective. For example, you use the words "divisive religious propaganda." I would ask how a depiction of Moses is "divisive religious propaganda."

Religions are by their nature divisive. When Christians themselves argue over who is a "true Christian", that's about as divisive as it gets.

I will also admit my bias by saying I think some on both sides of the issue go way overboard in what they describe as "divisive."

That is subjective, and somewhat dismissive. As above, religion is by its nature divisive.

It is within their power to choose not to do so, and I think they should in order to promote comity, civility, and the greater good. Pat Robertson and Michael Newdow both would serve the pubic interest better if they did not seek to demonize people of other views.

I agree, and point out these religious leaders do so under their take on the Bible. Which religious leader is correct, the one we personally agree with, or the one we don't? The government shouldn't be in the business of religion due to the inability to determine which one is the correct take on a given god.

Good example. I would say we should give people the option. I know one MN congressman used a Koran for his swearing in. I would differentiate between a situation where the requirement is intentional and coercive and one where it is simply tradition. I think what we have now is the latter. If people want to suggest changing the tradition or allowing exceptions, that is fine, but I don't think people should depict what is being done out of tradition as some sort of intentional oppression. It's not.

I make no distinction between intent and result. When folks are required to swear oaths on religious texts that is wrong. Whether it has always been done, or is a new phenomenon, it is wrong. I note that many jurisdictions have abandoned this practice, but it is still occurring.

Probably true, but there is a difference between what the government does and the perceptions and reactions individuals have. You cannot control the fact that some people are going to view atheists, or liberals, or evangelicals, or whatever, negatively. Being citizen and having freedom does not make you immune to people disagreeing or expressing negative views about you.

Agreed. I think it would be a simple matter to do away with requiring one to swear oaths on religious texts. By doing so we can eliminate such potential biases.

How has Satan or Satanism been involved in the legal traditions of this or any other country?

That's kinda my point. Satanists are members of the community, and under such programs that allow for religious ideology and iconography in government their voice has been silenced. Then we get the argument of, "Well they've been silent".

Well, if we are paying for Moses to be on the SCOTUS building and we decide not to do that, would we put some other artwork up or leave it blank? If you are going to spend the money anyway I frankly don't see that you need to assiduously exclude any and every religious symbol. Should we not spend public funds on depections of Lady Justice? How about Lady Liberty? Aren't we being sexist in doing so? Aren't we being paganistic in doing so?

Plenty fair. So we don't use public funds to promote religious iconography in any form. We come up with symbols that reflect all, instead of individual groups.

A good point. In some states there has been controversy over depictions of white men conquering, killing, etc. Native Americans in state government venues. That this happened is an undeniable part of our history. SHould we remove such displays?...

And you make a good point yourself. I gotta admit there's no easy answers regarding how we depict ourselves in a "warts and all" manner as I proposed. I'm stumped.

Is the display in and of itself divisive or not?

I'm not sure such displays should be considered in a vacuum. I would contend displays should be balanced, and not skewed to any one perspective, however difficult that task may be.

I have no problem with accurate historical depictions. This should certainly happen in a history class, even if we don't take the time to create such nuanced symbols in architecture.

Problem is architecture is so often used as a history lesson. Who would deny the history behind Moses, and depictions of Moses used to represent the laws of one or more religions?

There is a clear implication when referring to Moses, and that implication is "You will follow the laws of my God".

Problem is as soon as you do this there'll be those that raise a ruckus about the "other religion". I do agree your policy here is a good one, but the reality may not be so clear-cut. It has the potential of wasting public funds just trying to sort out what religion deserves what symbols.

Again, why should we let those who want to raise a ruckus rule the roost. Let them raise their ruckus. We can acknowledge their point of view without kowtowing to it by buckling under every time someone gets their shorts in a bunch.

By not using religious iconography we eliminate the divisiveness of such. I agree we don't let the "ruckus raisers" rule, but also we try to understand why such ruckus gets raised - religion. By using non-religious symbols we realize that some folks object to any particular religion involved.

[r~]

even an angel of light falls as a beast of darkness by damning sins of others

By calling it Christianity ItS you are associating this movement, philosophy, religion with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ and all who have followed him. Unitarian (one God) Universalism (who is the salvation of all) even keep your damning religion out of my just government by its name, transcends the necessarily narrow focus implied by the name Christianity.

What ever you say. I am not the one that associates dear old santa as fore ever marked by evil. Sarcasm is a terrible thing to waste. Those anointed to serve in the spirit as Christ do not damn dear old santa.

Thou shall not construe Law to deny or disparage well regulated peaceful pursuit of happiness. Please fore give. Serving in the spirit that en lightens these simple words just happens to be my own devout [religion]; even my own personal [jihad]. I call those that stand in the spirit with and for me equal all others as patriot and neighbor. I call those beasts that seek to impose their own graven Image of Religion upon you and me and others as terrorist in verse tyrant. A few good might better understand; most will not.
good for goodness sake is not the same as for reward or avoid punishment even torture

Just government shall make no law prohibiting free exercise or pursuit thereof. Keep your damning and graven image of [Whatever] Religion [-iNo] out of my own just government. Or fall even as choice is all ways fore ever yours.

ItS
liberty equal in verse all
r~

love tames even an otherwise savage beast