The First Amendment contains what is rightly called the FIRST FREEDOM. The fairest and best treatment of this issue I have every read is in WILLIAM MILLER'S THE FIRST LIBERTY.

I think it fair to say most Americans have agreed IN PRINCIPLE that the Federal Government, in particular, cannot OFFICIALLY ESTABLISH, SUPPORT AND PROMOTE any single sect or denomination as an official religion. The argument really comes about when we talk about government involvment concerning the appearance and participation of religions in the public square. Justice Black -following Thomas Jefferson- followed the absolutist postion on the meaning of the establishment clause. But I cannot believe that the Founders -or any 19th century Presidents for example or even FDR fo example- believed prayer and other religious activity should be carried out EXCLUSIVELY in the PRIVATE SPHERE OF LIFE. If that were true what would be the difference between the USA and a totalitarin government like China? In China Catholicisim for example or evangelical Christianity thrives but completely secretly and privately. Though our situation is not as extreme many Christians have to go underground in public schools for example. I think it fair to say that between 70% and 80% of Americans are against a strict absolutist position. When it comes to something as innocuously neutral (religiously speaking) as the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -I think polls have shown almost 90% of Americans support the pledge being part of our public life and public educaitonal system. If I no longer say the pledge it is because there is no logical time to say it anymore. To me to say it at 1000AM during 2nd period makes about as much sense as saying bedtime prayers for breakfast. One either BEGINS a day or ceremony with the pledge and one dedicates homeroom time for that OR one is saying that it isn't really important. Most High School students no longer say the pledge regularly in my experience as a teacher and observer of schools in Washington State, Virginia and California.

Some people believe, wrongly I think, that there is no such thing as a NONDENOMINATIOAL PRAYER and any public demonstration of religion is some sort of coercion an therefore non-voluntary. To me as long as church attendance, church classes, choice of Bibles or religous texts and DIRECT FINANCIAL SUPPORT of religious institutions is voluntary and non-preferential I think my religous freedom is complete. But I also believe (I am a public school teacher) that if I wish someone Merry Christmas I am not establishing a religion nor compelling anyone to believe anything. Happy Christmas or Merry Christmas are it could be argued more secular than religious; considering the history of these words they certainly do not call people to High Mass. Who even associates these words Mass and many I suspect do not even associate these worlds with Jesus his history or his philosophy nor the many sects and denominaitons descended from and influenced by his teachings.


Of course, this argument will become moot here as any such argument has become moot in places like England that HAS so called established religion but is so PC and multicultural that for all intents and purposes Christianity as an 'official religion' is dead and buried. Before long as in Beligium and Holland other religious groups, notably Muslims will merely occupy empty churches and give them the Hagia Sophia treatment.

As Western societies, including the United States become intimidated and more Dhimmified this whole argument about the FIRST LIBERTY will be seen as archair and quaint as discussing long engagments and virginity among young women and men.

Maybe then even liberals will long for the days -and sing in secret-GIVE ME THAT OLD TIME RELIGION- (and its atmosphere of freedom and individual choice and dignity).

In order to have RELIGIOUS freedom isn't it is SINA QUA NON to have SOME RELIGION. Just a thought. My personal belief is that we must DREAD GOD and embrace life and love and families if we are to survive as a people and as a civilization....my own personal belief is we must PRAISE THE LORD and PASS THE AMMUNITION if we are to survive....

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Munro:

I think it fair to say most Americans have agreed IN PRINCIPLE that the Federal Government, in particular, cannot OFFICIALLY ESTABLISH, SUPPORT AND PROMOTE any single sect or denomination as an official religion.

The people of the United States adopted the U. S. Constitution as the fundamental frame of civil government. It is a solemn and original compact being the act of the people, and by them declared to be the supreme law of the land. The powers thereby granted, are extended only to certain objects. The powers granted are limited and restrained. No power over religion was granted to the U. S. Government.

quote:

The argument really comes about when we talk about government involvment concerning the appearance and participation of religions in the public square.

The Lord Jesus Christ admonished us not to mix the things that are God's with the things of Caesar. His exact words are found at Matthew 22:21.

The objects of the political laws of a state are...first, to provide for the necessities of the nation.

To encourage labour and industry, to provide necessary workmen, to promote agriculture, to advance commerce, to establish an easy communication between the different parts of the state, to regulate the rates of money, are ranked among the first objects of a good government. To encourage education, the liberal arts, and sciences, justice and polity, and to fortify itself against attacks from without; to preserve peace, to support the dignity and equality of the nation, and to form advantageous connections, and a beneficial intercourse with other states and nations, may be considered as forming the aggregate of the political laws of a nation 45. I say nothing of the advancement of piety and religion; the present age seems to doubt of the necessity of any connection between church and state.

--Saint George Tucker (1803)

What exactly and precisely do you mean by "the appearance and participation of religions in the public square?" Are you talking about civil authority being used to advance religion?

quote:

Some people believe, wrongly I think, that there is no such thing as a NONDENOMINATIOAL PRAYER

Non-sectarian, or civil, religion is religion that has been corrupted by boiling it down to the lowest common denominator. Non-sectarian religion is Satan's corruption of the duty we owe our Creator.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that, "to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion...is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty." In other words, by merely entering the game of religion, civil government destroys all religious freedom.

Founding Father Daniel Carrol said, "the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand..."

The great Saint George Tucker wrote, "genuine religion is a concern that lies entirely between God and our own souls. It is incapable of receiving any aid from human laws. It is contaminated as soon as worldly motives and sanctions mix their influence with it. Statesmen should countenance it only by exhibiting, in their own example, a conscientious regard to it in those forms which are most agreeable to their own judgments, and by encouraging their fellow citizens in doing the same. They cannot, as public men, give it any other assistance. All, besides, that has been called a public leading in religion, has done it an essential injury, and produced some of the worst consequences."

Perhaps the Lord ordained separation of religion and government because he did not want the things that are God's corrupted by Caesar's authority and influence.

By nondenominational prayer I mean voluntary nondenominational prayer such as those prayers given by the Four Chaplains in February 1943 during the sinking of the Dorchester. It is a good example of the appearance and participation of religions in the public sphere.

You might recall these brave chaplains gave up their own life vests to save others. "Greater love hath no many than to lay down his life for a friend." Yes, they were good comrades and true men of God!

A survivor of the sinking, Engineer Grady Clark later recalled,

"As I swam away from the ship, I looked back. The flares had lighted everything. The bow came up high and she slid under. The last thing I saw, the Four Chaplains were up there praying for the safety of the men. They had done everything they could. I did not see them again. They themselves did not have a chance without their life jackets."


How interesting it would be to know the prayers they said together in those last moments of extremity but I think they would qualify as nondenominational prayer.

But perhaps it is SCIRE NEFAS...forbidden to know until the evening comes at last and there is peace on every hill....

The chaplains were honored posthumously with a special Medal of Heroism and a stamp, issued in 1948. By an act of Congress, February 3 was designated "Four Chaplains Day." Honoring their courage and civic virtue and showing respect for their supreme sacrifice might be said by some absolutists as unwarranted government support for religions but I think such a view extreme and dogmatic.

I understand that the Supreme Court has of late rejected nonpreferentialist interpretations of the the establishment clause in such cases as Engel v. Vitale (1962)and Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) and of course the recent -and in some quarters deeply resented Lee v. Weisman (1992) which prohibited prayers of any kind as part of a public school’s formal graduation ceremony.

I find it incredible, personally, on the basis of history and tradition based on our Judeo-Christian heritage, that a school district could have a hundred years of voluntary nondenominational prayer and this was considered completely normal and legal and all of a sudden this was prohibited BY GOVERNMENT ACTION AND FIAT. I myself up to 1992 had attended more than a dozen high school graduations and was never offended or felt coerced or compelled to join a religion or to engage in any act.

In many states, today, not EVEN STUDENTS ARE ALLOWED TO LEAD VOLUNTARY PRAYERS at graduation ceremonies and valedictorian addresses are CENSORED or prohibited by school officials if they make any religious references at all.

I understand that at times young scholars become overly enthusiastic at such moments but attendance at graduation ceremonies are not required. What is disturbing to me is the trend to prohibit through PC censorship of any cultural, literary, religious or patriotic allusion of speech during such public ceremonies. I recall Chesterton who said ‘tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.” Tradition and precedent are, I would argue THE SINA QUA NON to our free society. Without respect for them and their significance were are doomed to an Orwellian world of New Speak and the total annihilation of true freedom, freedom of conscience and the private life by the power of societal elites and the bold state.

I remember the memorial service at Yankee Stadium for 9/11. All present were invited to sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic. This is exactly and precisely what I mean by "the appearance and participation of religions in the public square?"

Is this the establishment of religion or showing respect for American traditions?

I would argue that a policy to drive out all traditional literature and songs from the public square is not freedom but in fact is an attempt by a bold state to suffocate free religious expression of any kind in the public square.

The Battle Hymn is part of our patriotic tradition; it is nondenominational in that respect. I am aware there is an allusion to Christ in one of the verses -one not often sung- but the song recalls the struggle for the Union and the spirit of sacrifice for the common good and freedom more than let's say, the cause of Christianity per se.

Perhaps this smacks of 'civic religion' but I would argue that 'civic' or 'civil religion' has always been part of the American tradition. We have always had a civic religion.

James Madison, our fourth president and the author of the American Constitution, said, "We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God." Apparently to Madison reference to the Bible was completely acceptable, nondenominational, non-coercive and ethical. Madison with humility acknowledged the people who came before him.

A civic religion to paraphrase Lincoln, is the mystic chord of communal memory, which binds together a nation's citizenry and its history into a meaningful identity. We must have a meaningful identity and national unity or in the end the Republic will be dissolved meaning the end of all we have cared for or hold dear.

Civic religion embodies national beliefs, events, persons, places and documents that symbolize “shared song” or great experiment that is the United States of America.

These symbols relate a people to its traditions, its histories, its men and women of character and valor and its ethical ideals. These public monuments and ‘shared songs’ help guide us and unite us as we search for knowledge and live and die amidst the mysteries of our destinies, our existence, of the cosmos above and about us, of the great mystery and wonder of life and creation and the mystery of something greater which many of us, still unsure of its meaning or power by tradition call Deus, Dia, Dios or God. NE OBLIVISCARIS…..….DO NOT FORGET. We must remember the people we came from, the sacrifices they made to build our nation and make it peaceful, prosperous, stable and secure.

Ironically, Lincoln, who never formally joined a church though he attended church regularly with his wife and often read the Bible, articulated the highest ideals of an American civic religion.

In his Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865, he expressed a profound theological interpretation of the War Between the States. And further, his "theology" was far more cogent and more forgiving than the most distinguished theologians of his generation.

This poignant speech by the martyr-president lauded the dignity of every human being and God's inscrutable purpose in bringing freedom to those bound in slavery. It manifested magnanimity toward the South, and it called upon all Americans to harbor no malice, to move swiftly toward reconciliation:

"With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan. ... "

Lincoln did not restrict his care to the Union soldiers, widows and orphans; he reached out equally to the South.

No American president has penetrated so deeply into the nature of providence, and none has described the fate of humanity before God with the humility or the sagacity of Lincoln. His second inaugural speech is especially remarkable, because even as late in the war as March, a swift outcome was nowhere certain.

Southern leaders, such as Jefferson Davis and high ranking officers like Bedford Forrest, were urging no surrender a retreat to the mountains to fight on as guerrillas or a move to new bases west of the Mississippi. Though many forget, but I do not, this moment in time reveals the true greatness of the moral force, leadership and integrity of Robert E. Lee who surrendered, with honor, on April 9, 1865 and then pledged his life to the cause of peace, education and reconstruction thus avoiding perhaps generations of bitter internecine struggle.

Lincoln did not presume that the high moral ground belonged only to his side.

His moral even-handedness sets him apart from the great majority of American presidents. Lincoln declared, "My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side."

I believe all religious participation should be voluntary but recognition that there are religious sensibilities among the people should allow for public moments of silence, crosses in military cemeteries (and any other reasonable accepted religious symbol; no swastikas please...), Christmas greetings exchanged at the end of a (public school term) and perhaps the singing of Christmas Carols on the front lawn. These expressions of faith and tradition are innocent enough and do not come close, in my opinion, to the establishment of religion. Neither does the wearing of green or a shamrock -or for the ironic orange or a thistle- on St. Patrick's Day.

The government must not interfere with reasonable religious practices (it is clear the government has the authority to stop, for example human sacrifice or the illegal slaughter or animals for the sake of public health in order; in other words THOUGHTS ARE FREE but UNLIMITED ACTIONS -which go beyond freedom of conscience- are not). The time, place and manner of a certain religious practice must always be considered.

The Supreme Court has ruled that in some instances religious expression may be limited for the sake of the public good. Up until today it has been held for example -going back to the famous Reynolds case (1879) that the federal law prohibiting polygamy.

As Islam grows in importance in the West and the USA the meaning of traditional marriage and its importance for the common good may become clearer or may be usurped and destroyed completely.


The time will come when we will have to decide whether or not we have a splendid ancient heritage of freedom and civilized ethical behavior based on law and our Judeo-Christian tradition or we don’t.

Heaven help us if we don’t. I have said it many times and I say it again if we are to survived this century as a free people we must cultivate and support family life, work hard to produce and save, PRAISE THE LORD and when necessary pass the ammunition.


Also see:

http://www.historyplace.com/specials/heroes/four-chaplains.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Munro:
By nondenominational prayer I mean voluntary nondenominational prayer such as those prayers given by the Four Chaplains in February 1943 during the sinking of the Dorchester.

de·nom·i·na·tion (dĭ-nŏm'ə-nā'shən) pronunciationn.

1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.