There's a blogswarm this weekend. Depending on who your source of information is, the swarm is either on writing against theocracy or writing about the separation of church and state. (My initial source was Cracker Lilo who has written a beautiful piece on this as well, which I encourage you to check out. You're going to have to go over to my links section there on the left, though, because I seem to have completely lost the ability to link within my post. Technology and I aren't friends. Digressing...) Either way, being me, I went to my beloved ~ if rapidly becoming obsolete ~ Constitution. And here's what I found (as I knew I would): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof..." (God, I love these guys. Such rebels. Digressing...) The First Amendment. Oh yeah, I could write on this. And I'd probably piss off a lot of believers and non-believers at the same time. "...no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof..." Good stuff. But then I really got to thinking. What does it mean? And the Sunday Poll Question was born.
Question ~ What does the separation of church and state mean to you?
Pobble Answer ~ First, and easiest, it means I can be Pagan; the Lovely Cats, Jaded and Krystal can be very different Christians; the FE, Nemeria and Webmistress can be Jewish; Lithus and Coffee Girl can be not sure what they believe; and the rest of you can fall wherever the rest of you fall. That's the easy answer.
It also means we all have to put up with each other. We all must be allowed to practice our faith openly, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's. And that's where it gets sticky. Over the last few decades, this has come to mean institutionalized atheism. But that's not separation of church and state; it's not "no law respecting...the free expression thereof..." A prayer over the PA system at a school is too much. It shoves that faith down the throats of all the students, not just offers the opportunity for children of that faith to express that faith. A minute of silence? That's perfectly acceptable. It gives everyone a chance to pray ~ or not pray ~ however they choose. No one's beliefs are disregarded. And frankly, more power to anyone who can manage to keep an entire school quiet for one whole minute.
Christmas trees or manager scenes in public, nonsecular places? Fine. That's the free expression of religion. Should there be, in public, nonsecular places, menorahs and Santa Claus as well in order to represent the free expression of other religions and beliefs? Absolutely. Because that's free expression of faith ~ or lack of it ~ as well. Christians don't have the corner on the Winter holidays ~ and neither do atheists.
Separation of church and state isn't about never being exposed to another faith or belief system. It's about being exposed to all of them. It isn't about having leaders who are the "right" kind of Christian. It's about having leaders who have a strong enough moral compass to recognize there is no "wrong" when it comes to religion. It's not about banning the phrase "Merry Christmas." It's about not being offended when someone responds with "Happy Holidays" ... or "Blessed Yule." It's not about fundamentalist Christians fighting for their religion to be the law of the land any more than it is about angry atheists fighting for their lack of religion to be the law of the land.
It's about all religions and beliefs ~ and the free expression thereof ~ having a place. At least to me. What about you?
Your answer ~
Those are Pobble Thoughts. That and a buck fifty will get you coffee.
22 comments:
I agree with you about all of the above. Having separation between church and state and freedom of religion are very important things for me. I feel that the separation between church and state makes sure that certain religiously influenced individuals don't come to legislature to make their specific beliefs law. The "State" is for everyone and ensures universal rights and enforces universal laws. In my opinion, it leaves the nitty-gritty way's people want to live their individual lives however they see fit. So when there are laws saying I can't buy beer on Sunday, I am being forced to observe someone else's beliefs, not mine. To me that is not separation of church and state. So those are my thoughts. Oh yeah, and gay marriage also doesn't seem to me to be separating church and state. This whole thing is all about forcing conservative christian beliefs onto people that believe differently. Now I'm done. Ahhh... sigh, I'm getting to riled up.
I agree with your statements. However, I think separation between church and state too is not to impose our views, religious money or religious ideas on where people assemble for education and other areas where people congregate. Also that no religious influences are made that would effect laws,and legislations. You know like the election and bringing into some churches conservative views on abortion, gays, etc. But some people fail to separate anyway....
Happy Easter!
We think exactly the same. And while many people do not believe that atheism is being shoved down our throats, it absolutely is! We live in a day and time when kids have been sent home from school for wearing shirts that says "Jesus died for you," and others are being told that they can't wear their Star of David, but another child can wear a shirt covered with skulls on it and girls can wear shirts so low you're just waiting for a nip to fall out. Now seriously, which ones are worse?!
I've always beleived that if you're offended by someone's expression of their faith it's because you are unsure of your own beliefs or just plain don't have any to begin with. It's caused by insecurity.
In high school there was a group of us who took turns praying together at lunch. There were Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Agnostic and athiest (the athiest didn't pray, he just supported us). Eventually, several groups began praying before lunch. THIS is what we need to be doing in our schools, learning to respect each other, not try to run it out to satisfy an extremely small number in our country who offended by the faith of others.
Our society is so busy telling us about how we have to tolerate other people, but "they" draw the line at religion. I say "they" need to take a serious look at how stupid "they" look! A person's religion frequently defines them. How then can any of us be told that we can't freely express it in public places but we are free to be who we are?! DUUUUUUHHHHH!!!
Graziella, I live in a totally dry county. It's not about religion though, it's about not wanting certain types of establishments and businesses in our county. However, before we moved here, I always found it annoying to not be able to purchase beer before noon on Sundays. And I was raised Baptist. As far as I'm concerned it's either legal to buy/sell or not.
I wrote a post about this several years ago, although it was more academic than emotional:
http://jadedandopinionated.blogspot.com/2005/08/history-101.html
Sue me, 'cause I don't ever remember how to do the links in comments.
I agree with you completely. I find that in this day and age we have become so scared to offend someone that we have become almost afraid to express our beliefs at all and this goes way beyond just religion.
I recently started a new job just before Christmas and I was scared to wish anyone a "Merry Christmas" in case they were Jewish or Muslim or atheist. Not that I have a problem with saying "Happy Holidays" and usually that is what I go with to be safe but when you have been saying "Merry Christmas" for ages it just comes out sometimes. As it happens both of my direct bosses are Jewish and I said "Merry Christmas" to both of them without knowing they were Jewish (and in my defense I was a wee bit ill so thinking about proper etiquette was not real high on my list) and neither said a word negative and simply wished me a "Happy Holidays". If only everyone were that accomodating.
i too love the 1st amendment.
to me the seperation of church and state is supposed to mean that no one can force religious beliefs on any one else nor can the government use one form of religion to create itself, policies, or laws.
where it gets sticky for me is that i want politicians to use their faith to motivate them in creating policies and laws for the greater good, just not to the detriment of others who don't agree. (and how do you do that?)
but it also means that people should be free to express their faith, which is so important to me. because this should create respect for the other. unfortunately that just doesn't seem to currently be the case.
good question this week. and really, i didn't disagree with anything you said at all.
cam, I lived in an area with many different faiths. When I said Merry Christmas to someone that was Jewish, they simply smiled and responded with Happy Hannukah. No one was offended. We'd just smile and go about our day. I've had Jews wish my a Happy Easter. I wished my Pagan friends Happy Ostara. I'd rather live in a world where people wished me Happy Hannukah, even though I'm Christian, than in a world where people were worried about wishing anyone anything!
Graziella ~ "the 'State' is for everyone." Well put!
Rose ~ It is tough that people fail to separate. I recognize it's not an easy thing to do. And yet the declaration that it is what we are *supposed* to do seems very basic to me.
Krystal ~ People are always shocked when I agree that Jesus saves. He didn't save *me* but that doesn't mean he doesn't save. We are also in agreement that people's problems with other faiths tends to indicate an insecurity with their own faith. And you're right; there's a difference between a dry county and one where booze is only sold on certain days.
Jaded ~ LOVED it! ('cause you know I went and read it.)
Cam Pike ~ Yes, political correctness has silenced us on many issues, not just religion. Your bosses' reactions and your reaction to them are exactly what I'm talking about; we need to be okay with others expression of faith and hear it as the good wish it is meant to be, instead of a direct attack on our faith.
Lovely Cats ~ I, too, want our leaders to have a moral compass. And I don't think using it without inflicting it is as difficult as you fear. You do it. Your father does it. I do it. LOTS of people do it. Jimmy Carter did it magnificently, to the point that people didn't realize how well he was doing it at the time. It's not easy ~ and I don't think it is as difficult as society makes it.
Pobble, I absolutely knew you would. And I knew you'd approve, 'cause it was right up your alley, so to speak.
I just had to add, that I was raised as a Seventh Day Adventist, and typically, SDA's don't consume alcohol. It would be pretty interesting if SDA's got to rule the roost and ban the sale of alcohol on Saturdays... don't think many folks would like that kind of Sabbath observation forced on them.
I do understand county's and towns choosing to ban the sale of alcohol all together. That said, I think it is an unfair judgment to refer to a "certain type of establishment" That kind of statement implies that lots of family restaurants are a "certain type of establishment" which simply isn't true. Lot's of families go out to dinner after church to such places and have wine with dinner. It is easy for a town to not have bars and clubs and rules about what time alcohol is served till with out taking that "freedom" away totally.
Graziella, I should have been more clear. We do not want bars, liquor store, or "gentlemen's clubs". In our dry county individual towns are permitted to have a vote to allow alcohol in full fledged restaurants only, but no take out. In all of our county only one town has decided to do that and only one restaurant serves with dinner (you can't just go in and drink, by law it must be with some time of meal).
We have several amazing restaurants though that people drive to from other counties due to their excellent food.
People around here that drive 30-40minutes to a liquor store prefer it this way. There's not been a single person with a back seat prooving a "Beer Run" that would have it any other way. Ironically, that even includes our local rowdies. LOL!
In these parts, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures that everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association,
along with assuring various democratic, language, equality and legal rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't require the imposition of views or the absence of views, but insists upon the celebration and expression of multiple views... in fact, the Charter explicitly states that it must be interpreted in a multicultural context.
So, I suppose, I don't think about the seperation all that much, but I whole-heartedly appreciate it, and can't imagine living without the freedom, tolerance and respect that such a seperation demands.
As the US constitution does nopt apply to me nor protect me, I guess my answer is "nothing". But in spirit, I think it means that governments have no right to tell you what your spirituality should be like. After all, some of the founding fathers were fleeing religious persecution, were they not? But let's be honest. The constitution was written by Christians and reflects Christian morality. You can't write anything without bias. Neither can laws without bias be made.
Wolfgrrrl ~ I like your Charter of Rights. And I really appreciate the fact that the writers came right out and said "read this from a multicultural point of view."
GOML! ~ Actually, it was for my Canadian readers that I made the question about separation of church and state in general, instead of the 1st Amendment, specifically. Thanks for chiming in! Meanwhile, you are right about biases. However, in reading other documents written by the Founders, it is clear that they were aware of those biases and were trying to the best of their abilities to counter them.
You make excellent points, and that generally describes my view of this topic.
It would never be possible to completely rip these two apart - nor would I want that - but you can't tilt the other direction of being guided in your policy-making and major decisions according to some religious doctorine that it's likely most people don't agree with 100%.
In the end, for me it boils down to giving everyone an open forum for their own beliefs without fear of persecution (sp?).
Today I read a letter in USA Today, responding to an atheist mother's op-ed, saying that she is not fit to raise her own children with her own beliefs.
The Constitution, thank the Gods, says different. And I can use the expression "thank the Gods" out in public and get little besides weird looks.
That's what it means to me, short version. You told everyone about long version. :-)
$$ ~ It's the fine line between having a moral compass and forcing it on other people. Like you, I wouldn't want to wrench some sense of "what's right" from our laws. At the same time... You get it.
CrackerLilo ~ Now I'm sickened (but still grateful you shared!) Thank the Goddess, indeed, for the Constitution!
Love your thoughtfulness Pobble... wish I had time to read you more!
I know I'm chiming in late, but ...
Remember the historical context. It is not at all clear that the founding fathers of the US were Christian and some clearly were not. Others were Christian clergy. All were aware of the history of established religion in Europe (particularly but not exclusively England)and some of the misfortunes of that view, persecution being only one.
Separation was an early issue in the New World, as was establishment. Consider the Massachusetts Colony and the Flushing Resolve, the first being a theocracy and the second a demand for religious freedom decades before the Constitution was written.
The first Amendment is, to me, one of the glorious turning points in history and well worth the effort which has been put into its interpretation. Pobble, you got it right.
Akakarma ~ Thank you. I'm simply touched you take the time to pop over when you do have it.
Appsrus ~ I admit, I've been hoping you would respond to this one. I will have to do some research on the Flushing Resolve. Expect an email. ;) "A glorious turning point" Yep. Exactly. And what a beautiful way of putting it!
So many ideas, I love seeing, listening and trying to understand people who are willing to consider more than the moment.
I am actually an atheist, one of the many flavors out there. *Side Note*
I think that it is important to accept the differences in people and the ideas that surround us. This is the source of the richness of thought and culture. I think that religions have held societies and cultures together with many notable examples in our histories. I also know that religious dogma has torn civilizations apart and caused long periods of dark ages in thought and discovery. Perhaps the best reason to keep the two separate.
It is often difficult for us to truely understand another's perception of the world even if it is methodically explained. I think that this is the place where we should offer the other human the respect of being sentient with reason, though different, worthy of respect due to the individuals experience. Perhaps this suggests that there are truely as many philosophies as there are people, past and present.
The notion that we should create a nation that can take into account the differences and should offer protection within it's borders to these differences is the result of selfless thought, amazing, considering the opression of free thought found in the times.
The idea that we wish the other person well and to be happy in what ever way is our custom, is not a bad thing I think.
I don't mind the 2 or 3 minutes for students to reflect and center themelves whichever way is best for them. The Lord's Prayer over the PA should be contained within a private school environment though as it is unrepresentative of all.
I have issue with the 10 commandments set within the halls of our public justice system which is to represent all of us; Jew, Christian, Paegan and Athiest equally. Justice and truth are basic to reason. The idea of morality being a part of our justice system is problematic because of moralality's natural transience as viewed from one perpective or another.
All should be represented by basing rule of law not in a specific religious dogma but those of sense of reason, ethics and justice.
I don't oppose showing religious symbols on public property as long as all can be represented and respected equally, this is the ideal but tough to do I think.
*side note*
My sense of who I am is not pejorative but to view the world as filled with ideas about what may be when the unseen can not be seen.
I had never accepted the premise, which I had felt horribly flawed, that to be one one (atheist); one must be able to be sure of the "not" thus being omniscient. Most arguments are circuitous with none ever establishing truth in describing the unknown. I think that this the place for belief. It is as valid as disbelief.
Lesser Minion ~ Nicely put. And I appreciate your side note, especially "Most arguments are circuitous with none ever establishing truth in describing the unknown. I think that this the place for belief. It is as valid as disbelief." It is this nature of belief or disbelief that, I think, requires us to keep separation of church and state. One of these days, you should meet appsrus. I'll just sit back and listen.
Post a Comment