Freedom of religion or freedom from religion?
European disputes over head scarves and turbans in public schools hardly
exist in the United States. Here’s why.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/freedom_of_religion_or_freedom_from_religion/
[excerpt]
American exceptionalism
But there is an alternative understanding of the separation of Church and
state that is not quite so blind to the private and religious identities
of
its citizens. It is the conception of non-establishment in the United
States. Secularists and religionists alike have much to learn from duly
appreciating the depth and power of the US position.
It is not an insignificant fact that the Founding Fathers of the United
States left behind centuries of religious persecution in Europe at the
hands of governments to come to America. Huguenots, Calvinists,
Anabaptists
and Puritans fled the religious wars of Europe in the hope of finding a
save haven across the Atlantic where they could live in peace and freely
practice their beliefs. The separation of church and state that exists in
the United States exists for the sake of religious belief and its free
practice.
Non-establishment is twofold in the United States. Firstly, constitutional
protections with respect to freedom of religion enable individuals and
communities to challenge civil law on the basis that it impedes their
liberty to practice and adhere to their beliefs; that civil law oversteps
its mark when it attempts to govern and control the consciences of
citizens. As a result, there is a tremendous suspicion of civic "soul
marking" in the United States. The government, as many Americans
understand
it, has no right to try to form the moral character of its citizens. That
should be left to parents and communities of faith. And, in this regard,
there is a sizable volume of judicial reviews on the basis of freedom of
religion with respect to public education in the United States, not least
of which was an exemption that Amish parents received from mandatory
education requirements under Wisconsin v. Yoder. In this 1972 case, the US
Supreme Court declared that Wisconsin’s requirement that children attend
school until the age of sixteen unjustly interfered with the way of life
of
the Amish and that the requirement was unconstitutional.
Secondly, though, non-establishment clauses in the constitution prevent
the
United States government from ever being the handmaiden of a particular
religious denomination, sect, or community. As a result, the US has quite
stringent conditions on the extent to which the government can provide
financial sup****t to religiously-affiliated institutions and, from a
constitutional perspective, the government can never endorse or eschew the
views of any particular religious group. In light of such
non-establishment
clauses there have been contestations over whether the government is
entitled to give tax exemptions to religiously-affiliated charities and
the
like. And, while the US government does sup****t religiously-affiliated
charities, it remains reluctant to provide similar sup****t for
religiously-affiliated schools in case it be seen to be endorsing
particular churches as a result.
More respectful of diversity
But, notwithstanding the pedantic way in which the US judiciary and
legislature has sought to do justice to the ideal of non-establishment,
the
very purpose of non-establishment is to protect religion from the state.
On
the American account, non-establishment is upheld not out of deference to
some civic-republican notion of universal citizen****p and the integrity of
the common will but from a historically grounded—very real—fear of the
evils of state-sanctioned religious persecution. The Founding Fathers were
all too aware of the evils that can be done in the name of salvation when
religions no longer give to Caesar what is Caesar’s but infiltrate the
army
of the Empire to erect the Kingdom of Heaven.
The American approach is more respectful of diversity than its civic
republican counterpart. Separation between church and state exists not in
the name of Enlightenment and a suspicion of "private" religion but in
recognition of the value and im****tance of religion to people’s lives and
the dangers that arise to this crucial area of intimacy from theocratic
government.
It is no accident that religion enjoys a more privileged status in the
United States than it does in Europe, where publicly, as former British
Prime Minister Tony Blair's press secretary once said, "we don’t do
religion". L’affaire foulard could not have happened in the United States
while the greenback bears the mark "In God we Trust." Secularists,
socialists, and Jacobin liberals may loathe the sense of im****tance that
religion enjoys in the United States. But for those of us in other
countries who value genuine tolerance and religious freedom there is much
to appreciate in the American tradition.
Michael McGann is completing a PhD thesis on the philosophy of
multiculturalism at Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia.
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
|
