|
|
|
April 6th, 2009
11:43 am - Separation of Church and State
Okay, on Facebook recently, during discussion about a friend's link led to me, at request, and with said friend's permission to go off-topic, I was asked to explain my psoition on the Separation of Church and State. In case you haven't been paying attention, I am an atheist and this discussion had a very charged give and take with someone that I'd refer to as an evangelical Christian, and the request for my opinion on Church/State separation came from a devout Christian, but I wouldn't go so far as to describe as evangelical. What follows, is what I typed, verbatim. Noe edits have been made, save for bolding the quote and italizing the quoted amendment, but I felt like I should probably share it with those that aren't able to go view it on Facebook.
Now, as for the separation of church and state. The text reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
My interpretation of this is that the government cannot make any law that prohibits the practice of any religion. There's debate if this means that government should completely stay out of religious matters, but in 1994, the US Supreme Court concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion". (Souter)
As an atheist, I think that religious doctrine is wrong, but since I consider myself a true Liberal, I respect the rights given to you by the US Constitution to practice your faith. I just ask that you respect my right to not practice any faith.
I DO NOT think that the government should be atheist. The government should be non-religious. Whenever the government (police, public schools, local to federal state elected officials, firemen and the military, to name a few governmental organizations) express a non-specifict belief in a higher power, they alienate 12% of the population. (http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf) Any law passed that imposes religious principles upon all of the population is therefore unconstitutional. Likewise, any law that would require religious persons to cease practice of their religion would be unconstitutional.
Easy translation: We cannot stop your child from praying in public school, but we can't make everyone else's child pray with your child.
How does this relate to Same Sex Marriage? Not a whole lot, because proponents of Same Sex Marriage are not requiring your church to hold Same Sex Weddings, but are asking that government officials issue non-religious marriage licenses to Same Sex couples for the purposes of non-religious rights in non-religious government affairs (inheritance of property, decision in medical emergencies, etc.)
Now here's the rub. What if a government clerk that issues marriage licenses is opposed to same sex marriage on religious grounds and refuses to issue a marriage license to a Same Sex Couple? The same rule applies as if a person who morally opposes handguns refuses to issue a gun permit. At that moment, the clerk IS the government. If fired the clerk can seek redress against the government for infringing upon the practice of their religion, but they have to go up against the precedent created in 1997 when the Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 of the 14th amendment takes precedent over the first amendment.
In short: Your Freedom of religion does not give you the right to take away my protection under the law.
Now this is based entirely upon interpretation of the law by the US Supreme Court, which has fluctuated between strict and loose interpretations of the Constitution. A stricter interpretation of the 14th amendment would change this ruling, since a strict interpretation would apply the 14th amendment only to slavery. As of right now, we probably have the most conservative court since the 1920s. However, Antonin Scalia is 73 and if he were to resign or perish, his replacement would most likely shift the court to a more liberal, and likely looser interpretation of the 14th amendment. Anthony Kennedy's replacement might not create the same shift since he's now the swing vote and sometimes sides with the more liberal members of the court. Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsberg would likely not change the makeup of the court if they were replaced by a more liberal justice.
All the more reason to pay attention to who has the power to nominate Justices. No matter which political side you take.
Current Mood: productive
Current Music: the TV is on and Penny is snoring. That's the noise of a day off.
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jdstanford's journal