<p>Not to put to fine a point on it, but did you mean to say establishing instead of sanctioning. That would of course reflect the wording of the constitution. I suppose it would be hard to argue that a school that allowed governmental space to be used in such a discreet way would be establishing a religion.</p>
<p>It seems incredible to argue that the constitution or the people who composed it ever had any intention of treating religion like pornography, something to be done, with some shame, outside the public sphere. Though as I reflect on it, religion would probably gain a greater intellectual currency among certain intellectuals and in academia if it were treated like pornographyyou know, cutting edge stuff.</p>
<p>It hardly requires a keen grasp of constitutional exegesis to interpret the phrase Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. For 100+ years it was clear what this prohibition implied.</p>
<p>Well, you can go inside Constitution Hall today and find out what the authors thought about displays. Unlike virtually every other legislative hall in the land, there were no crosses. No Bibles. No 10 commandments. The ethical framework (reflected in 33 pages of close argument in The Federalist Papers) comes from Greek and Roman Law (there is virtually no mention of Biblical law whatsoever.) There is a better argument to put up a statue of a naked Greek goddess than there is for the 10 Commandments, from an “originalist” point of view.</p>
<p>The Constitutional framers banished God from the public space, and from any reference whatsoever in governmental matters. At the time, it was an extremely striking thing to do, much talked about in newspapers and pamphlets across the country, caused opposition from Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, but was adopted, with those adopting it knowing full well of God’s banishment. </p>
<p>This was not a matter of religious “neutrality”. God was simply persona non grata. If you think that’s the equivalent of treating God like pornography, so be it (Patrick Henry certainly would have thought it equivalent.) The framers, however, were simply making a statement that, as regards government, S/HE should be relegated to the bench.</p>
<p>When these discussion of religion and the “threat” of the religious right come up I am baffled by the belief of some that the “whacko religious right” is trying to create a Talibanesque state in this country. When I see these assertions I think of the old TV show “Third Rock from the Sun” about a group of aliens who take on human forms and are supposed to report back about life on Earth (same concept as “Mork and Mindy”). Can you imagine the reaction of the “The Big Giant Head” if the report came back of legal live sex acts in Oregon, gay marriage in Massachusetts, abortion available to all - with or without parental notification, assisted suicide, TV shows with a regular staple of nudity, sex and gay lifestyle, football coaches having to resign because they are not allowed to participate with their team-led prayers, teachers ever fearful that they may say something that is construed to be religious and therefore “offensive” - all this followed by the final summary: “the people are outraged over the takeover of American politics and culture by the religious right”. I think the Big Giant Head would be as incredulous as I am - especially if he did a trend analysis from previous reports.</p>
<p>Three and a half months of debate regarding whether God should be allowed into the Constitution. (Sorry if you interpreted it to mean “physical space” - though, if that’s what you are looking for, take a look around Constitution Hall.) </p>
<p>I doubt that GW would ever even consider appointing one of the framers (in the belief systems they espoused 1787-1791) to be dogcatchers, no less judges.</p>
<p>The truth is that all too many folks arguing here see no problem with religious expression in governmental places as long as it is the “right” religious expression. </p>
<p>Satanism? no way.</p>
<p>Extreme Muslim? Hmmm.</p>
<p>For those that asked, my choice of words, sanctioning, was not accidental. For, IMHO, permitting a permanent display, or a regular recitation under governmental employee supervision, is, indeed, establishment. How can we have it any other way, other than by semantic hairsplitting. </p>
<p>Now, you proponents tell me what to do about the radical muslim cleric that comes in…</p>
<p>This is an interesting discussion, but I wanted to throw another comment out seemingly from another area of the country. I am from and always have lived in the deep south. What you may not realize is that religion is VERY much a part of both daily life and politics in this area. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, I’m saying it’s a fact. Growing up in Mississippi, political candidates regularly listed the church they are a member of on their political brochures/fliers. You can still find this. I can promise you that if a candidate in Mississippi or Alabama (where I now live) stated publicly that they didn’t believe in God, they would have a less than 1 percent chance of getting elected. Again, I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, just that I have no doubt in my mind that is what would happen. There was a HUGE section of the paper in Birmingham this last weekend devoted to the fact that so many sports teams at public schools choose to pray before games. It was noted that this was illegal, but it’s what the communities want. The only reason I point this out is to say that this mindset is widespread in the deep south and so there never truly was a secular environment to begin with.</p>
<p>“Investigating” a public official’s religious beliefs is always a precarious venture and is typically distasteful. Outwardly religious folks whom have thrown themselves into the political or civic arena have made serious missteps (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Ralph Reed come to mind) in their public acts or comments [favoring asassination, September 11 guilt, Abramoff-Indian Casino scandal], but for the most part, I don’t fear their partcipation in the public square: as long as they conform to the rule of secular government and legitmate state interest.</p>
<p>And by the way, I cannot endorse the cliched mantra of “strict construction” because I’ve always stumbled over that 3/5 of all other persons" constitutional thing. LOL.</p>
<p>I realize this isn’t necessarily your personal view, but you had stated:</p>
<p>“It was noted that this was illegal, but it’s what the communities want. The only reason I point this out is to say that this mindset is widespread in the deep south …”</p>
<p>So was slavery. And segregation. And the odd lynching. The fact that a community happens to think a particular way doesn’t make it legal.</p>
<p>Again, I didn’t say it was right…I just said that it’s illegal yet it goes on in many high schools in the south. Like I said, the front page of the Birmingham News last weekend was filled with pictures of schools from all over the area participating in this. It’s not something that’s hidden. All I was pointing out is that not all area of the country are hearing backlash about this nomination due to the religious aspect. The letters to the editor in our papers seem to question her lack of experience as a judge rather than the statement of her religious beliefs. We are used to hearing that about political condidates.</p>
<p>A common misconception is that prayer before a game is illegal. Only when approved, sanctioned, enabled (or whatever) by the coaches or other officials. As an individual, one can do what one pleases.</p>
<p>I don’t think any of us object to religion per se, nor to one advertising one’s affiliation as part of a campaign. What IS objectionable, IMHO, is when that official gets elected and insists on starting official meetings with a prayer. What about the person whose religion views prayer as a deeply personal thing, only done in private? Offended? yes, and rightly so.</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter did a good job of handling this issue, IMHO.</p>
<p>We’re now equating religious belief/practice with slavery and murder? Let’s not go there, please. Teach2005 was making the point that we are simply not a secular society. That is a new ambition, and one that is likely to fail. Not the same thing as having “God in the government.” Government shouldn’t establish its own religion, but the idea that it has the power and duty to stomp it out when it appears outside of a church is evil, offensive, and…bigoted.</p>
<p>This is why I find the juxtaposition of the claims and reality of those who insist they want “strict constructionist” judges so fascinating when you get to the Pledge case.</p>
<p>Driver claims:
</p>
<p>BZZZZZZT!! Wrong!</p>
<p>What the Constitution <strong>says</strong> is:
</p>
<p>That’s “no law respecting an establishment of religion” - not “no law actually declaring an official state religion, but anything short of that is okey-dokey.” Strictly construed, what the Constitution actually says, and what Driver “interprets” it to mean, are two different things. You gotta figure if the framers had meant to say what Driver says, they would have. Or to put it another way: “The Constitution. It says what it says, no more, no less.”</p>
<p>And frankly, enacting a Federal law which states that the official pledge of allegiance to the country (dutifully recited throughout the nation by order of every school board which doesn’t want to be recalled) requires the public affirmation that the nation is “under God” qualifies pretty clearly as a law “respecting” an establishment of religion.</p>
<p>The non-“activist”, strict construction answer to the pledge case is a no brainer. But I have absolutely no doubt that the same people who caterwaul about “activist” judges and demand “strict constructionist” ones want absolutely nothing of the sort on this case.</p>
<p>Teach2005:
Sorry, I should have made it clearer - I’m not pointing any fingers in your direction. I realize you were making an observation about the mindset of a particular community, not necessarily a statement of your own beliefs.</p>
Two things, Mini. First, it’s a gratuitious stretch to state that the summer of 1787 was spent discussing God and religion’s relationship to government. Didn’t happen that way. Second, Independence Hall (I assume that’s what you mean by Constitution Hall) was the statehouse of Pennsylvania–Quaker Pennsylvania–and thus reflected their particular preferences regarding religious symbols. It would be a mistake to attribute those preferences to the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, who were guests in town and using the facilities that were available. Not that I’m arguing that the delegates wanted God in government.</p>
<p>And Kluge…I know you’re all excited right now…but how do we get from the “strict constructionist” “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (can’t understand why you omitted the second phrase…oh well) to making it “illegal” for football players to say a prayer before a game?</p>
<p>Woodwork - Jefferson did not draft or ratify the Constitution. In fact, he wasn’t even in the country. And quoting folks from 1781 or 1802 says nothing about what folks wrote (or intended) in 1787-1791 - that’s why you would have folks like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, signers and proponents of the Declaration, railing against ratification of the Constitution. </p>
<p>They railed against it because it explicitly and purposely left God out, and leaving God out of anything pertaining to governmental affairs was understood by all those who ratified it. (Had this Constitution been presented in 1776 it likely wouldn’t have been ratified; had it been presented in 1803 it certainly wouldn’t have been ratified. It was a radical document - the first government foundation document in the history of the world to look to the people rather than the deity for its source of sovereignty, and to banish God from all governmental matters.)</p>
<p>Driver, you should know your Quaker history better than that. Friends left control of the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1756, never to return. Most were gone entirely by 1776. None of the “Penn” proprietors (the descendants of William Penn) were Friends. Independence Hall had been the seat of non-Quaker (usually Anglican) government for more than 30 years.</p>
What is your source for this? I’m aware that Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams were “anti-Federalists” in the debate over the Constitution (although Adams supported ratification when it came to MA), but there were a whole host of issues with which they disagreed. The Bill of Rights was implemented largely to pacify the Patrick Henry faction.</p>
<p>Pennsylvania ceased to be a “theocratically” governed colony in 1756, but the political power of the Quakers in Philadelphia (based largely on their economic dominance) wasn’t broken until the Constitutional period --by which I mean the early 1780s period of new state constitutions–when their opposition to the war worked against them among the population at large. However, their traditions of religious tolerance and avoidance of religious symbols remained.</p>
<p>The Wirt and Tyler biographies of Henry will provide you with plenty. (There were indeed a host of issues - what’s most interesting to read from the period are the pamphlets and cartoons deriding the Constitution framers as “godless”. But you are right - there were other large issues looming - including the framers distrust of “democracy” - Madison is fascinating on that score, and state’s rights.)</p>
<p>The political power of the Friends was broken in 1755-1756 because of their opposition to levies to pay for protection on the western frontiers. They had already become a minority in the Commonwealth by 1720. Friends became anathema to most of the state, and virtually withdrew from state affairs before the Revolution. Given the choice between raising a militia or resigning their posts, the vast majority resigned, never to play any role in the governance of Pennsylvnia thereafter. Pacifism in the Revolution of course became the nail in the coffin.</p>