The law and legal precedent for the last few hundred years arise from a clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: 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. The historical irony is apparently that Madison, the drafter, was trying to drum up support for the ratification of the constitution in states like Virginia that had state religions and were afraid that the federal government would create a national religion
The practical implication of the first portion of the amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" during the last fifty years has generally come to mean that the Congress will not form a religion and will not prefer one religion over another. This is what comes into play when the courts scrutinize laws allowing tax dollars to be used to pay for education of students including private religious education (mostly allows), public displays of religious artifacts (depends), or public school prayer (nope, nada).
Over the years, the courts have created and dismantled several tests like "secular purpose", "primary effect" and "excessive entanglement". The strictness of the tests change from narrow to wide to narrow again based on the biases of the judges of the supreme court. Then there are subtleties: an Alabama judge was fired when he refused to take down a display of the Ten Commandments he had installed in a state courthouse, while the Texas Capitol was allowed to keep a monument with the Ten Commandments on it.
On one hand, the courts have more or less uniformly disallowed prayed in public schools. It clearly does not meet the secular purpose or primary effect tests. Simple. But doesn't the government also have to protect the free exercise of religion? I want to pray in school and you are not letting me. It turns out the the courts have given greater weight to the establishment clause and less to the free exercise clause when the two conflict.
On the other hand, most schools read and students recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, including the "under God" portion that was added to the pledge in the 1950's. Students can't be forced to recite the pledge any longer and may instead remain silent. Subtle again. It seems obvious that the idea of the pledge in spite of the under god portion is secular and the primary effect is not to promote or inhibit a religion. But doesn't it clearly promote all religions and inhibit the atheistic point of view? The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a prayer does not get any constitutional protection just because it is non-denomination and non-sectarian but the pledge apparently does. And if silence and non-participation works for the pledge, why not do the same with school prayer?
Ironically "So help me God" (courtroom oath) and "God save the United States and this Honorable Court"(courtroom opening ritual) are other examples of violation of the establishment clause in none other than the judiciary. And then there's the most visible sanctioning of religion by the US government. "In God We Trust" has been inscribed on US coins since 1864 and paper currency since 1957. It's the official national motto since the 1956 and re-affirmed three months ago by the House citing a crisis of national identity and mass confusion among Americans about their nation’s motto. The courts hold that this display is safe from scrutiny of the establishment clause because it has lost it's religious significance due to rote. And the Supreme Court ruled that the nation's institutions presuppose a Supreme Being, and that government recognition of god does not constitute the formation of a state church and hence does not violate the establishment clause.
Why then object to a banner that has hung from the walls of the auditorium of a high school since 1963 because it mentions "God", that presupposed supreme being? What if the school took down the banner and replaced it with a poster of a magnified portion of the back of a dollar bill?
Most religions require you to defend your faith and advance it when and where possible. In face of this constant onslaught, stopping opportunistic religious squatters from infiltrating any further into public institutions is an important and valid idea. But religion is almost ubiquitous among humans. Institutions, whether schools or governments, are built by humans. Trying to excoriate all traces of religion from government must be futile and frustrating.
Democracy is the rule of the majority. Protecting the basic freedoms of the individual including her right to practice her religion is what prevents democracy from becoming a blunt club wielded by the lowest common denominator.
But people take religion too seriously. The constitution protects it. The Congress reaffirms it. The courts scrutinize it. The moral majority pushes it. The atheists fight it. Too bad it's not treated more like the size of your penis. You know what you've got, and stop worrying about what everyone else thinks. Vivian has a favorite color. It's purple. The right to a favorite color is not protected by the constitution. Vivian could end up in a school with beige walls. Will she fight against state-sponsored colors? Will she change her views on god when she walks past a banner professing him? And in the end, will purple or god have a greater effect on her life?
No comments:
Post a Comment