Tao
columnist: Taliesin

Topic: Religion and Government
Religious Freedom- A Clear Separation Clarified

---

I hear "the Separation Clause" bandied about a lot. But what it is and what it really says are things that most people miss. So I'd like to take you on a journey that will most likely offend you. Are you ready?

---

by Taliesin
(libertarian)
Saturday, February 2, 2008

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
-excerpt from the First Amendment, commonly referred to as the Separation Clause.

It seems like an odd way to credit a quote, doesn't it? However, the reason I feel it had to be credited in that way is rather simple. The word 'separation" is nowhere to be found in it. I find this to be a telling observation. To refer to it as the "Separation Clause" is to imply one interpretation, or approach, to the implementation of the 1st Amendment. In George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language", it is illustrated that to use idioms or 'catch' phrases in the simplification of language, one calls up visualizations that may be inappropriate, or that promote automatic acceptance of ideas. They definitely limit critical analysis. The use of "The Separation Clause" or the phrase "Separation of Church and State" to describe the first part of the 1st Amendment, is to call up a visualization of mutual separation. This mutual separation does not exist in the actual wording of the clause. This clause does not separate church and state. It excludes state from church. The state is forbidden to interfere in matters of religion.

Let's look at what the 1st Amendment really says and does. To say that the state must expunge any religious practice or iconography or even reference to religion in the public or private sector is to violate the second part of this clause. We cannot deny that we are human and religion is a fundamental aspect of human dynamics. Whether it should or should not be so is not within the power of the state. The 1st Amendment also limits religion. However by its language it does not and indeed cannot do so directly lest it violate itself. This is the beauty of the actual wording.

By it's wording, the 1st Amendment limits itself from interfering in matters of religion. Religion is not barred from influencing the state, but is barred from using such influence as a means of religious oppression. Just like one cannot easily use a screwdriver to saw wood, religion cannot use the state to influence religion. Once a religion takes over a position of power in the state, it becomes blocked in its capacity to undermine other religions by the 1st Amendment. Since the ultimate power, as established by The Constitution, is owned by the people, religion, in order to enjoy the most power must remain in the public sector. This first part of the 1st Amendment is pure genius. However, the spirit of The Constitution must be maintained in order for this to hold true.

In America, there can be no official religion, but nor can there be official secularism. The common interpretation of this issue by many advocates on both sides is simply wrong, as I have demonstrated. This is the simple truth that will piss off everyone. Let's move on to actual examples and specific issues. In a roundabout way, the so-called "Separation Clause" is established in the same spirit as when Jesus is quoted as saying "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". The concepts of state and deity if applied properly, are not concerned with the same things so there is no need to be disloyal to either, nor any valid way to officially combine them in all their aspects. This is my interpretation of that phrase, and influences my interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

There are times when what is expected of a person spiritually is also expected by the state. This is a coincidence, nothing more. The fact that unsanctioned murder is forbidden by most religions and laws is not because one influenced the other, both sides arrive at the same conclusion for different reasons. Religion approaches the question of murder from the idea of the sanctity of life. The state approaches it from a view of keeping the peace. But this coincidence cannot be pointed to as a demonstration of church and state combining. And notice I say "unsanctioned". Neither most religions, nor most societies entirely rule out killing as a valid option under certain settings. Certain behavior that creates problems can only be solved by the elimination of the offending party. And the circumstances of such exemption show how church and state can differ while agreeing.

In the Old Testament and even in the New Testament, God routinely eliminated people who interfered with his people, or refused to allow him what he felt was his due. In the Hindu story of Kali and the demon, Raktabija, the demon must be destroyed because his power and threat to the gods could not be contained. In these instances, there was no other option because talking would not solve the problem. Coincidentally, in the realm of society and laws there are people who do not, and are unwilling to, work for the good of society. These are people who create an unbalance by refusing to submit to, or recognize, the laws and general behavior that benefit a society and instead seek to actively disrupt it.

I am referring to sociopaths, and also to those whose personal views are uncompromising and detrimental to the general welfare of society. The extremist Muslim who believes that wholesale and random slaughter is acceptable for religious reasons is not a detriment to society because of their religion. The detriment stems from their viewpoint on what behavior is acceptable with regards to human life and the peaceful co-existence of society factions. Whether for moral or legal differences, if the underlying frame of mind will not submit to acceptable good behavior, then talking is a waste of time, the perspective is not subject to the same definitions of good and evil. Compromise requires such a shared perspective. Incarceration will not eliminate the problem, nor change the underlying viewpoint, and results in a secularly unjustifiable financial burden on society. In this case, death is the answer. In a manner similar to how we deal with cancer, the problem must be aggressively eliminated, because it cannot be cured.

These are extreme behaviors, though. What about the behaviors that do not result in death or disruption? Does a cross in a government building suppress or exalt religion? It does promote one religion, but does it establish Christianity to the exclusion of all other religions. It can, but it does not necessarily mean that it does. To remove the cross suppresses Christianity's representation more than its existence suppresses other religions. To suppress all religions is a neater and easier solution, but according to the 1st Amendment, it is beyond the power of government to do so. The state cannot remove a religious symbol, nor can it place one above others officially. If the cross was placed as a result of a law, that would violate the 1st Amendment, otherwise it is completely legal. To remove it as an act of the state would violate the 1st Amendment. This also applies to any other religious symbol that may be placed alongside the cross.

Recently, there was much controversy within the Neo-Pagan community with regard to the refusal by the VA to place the pentacle on the headstones of fallen soldiers whose religion was Wicca. I personally knew one of the people involved with that. Her husband was buried at Arlington with no religious symbol for 10 years. The problem was that Wicca has no official priesthood, nor central governing body, nor even coherence in practice. The argument could be made that Christianity does not either, but the full exploration of that is beyond the scope of this article. The main point is that a governing body was refusing to place the pentacle on a Wiccan grave because the adherents of Wicca were not abiding by the rules for proving that the symbol was representative of an actual religion. This is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment. There can be no laws recognizing what is a religion, and the rules of the VA are determined by law. Better to state that any religious symbol or symbol recognized as having a spiritual capacity may be allowed. My friend died before the fight was officially over. Fortunately, she is now buried with her husband at Arlington with a pentacle on the headstone. This is an example of a situation the writers of The Constitution were trying to avoid.

Due to sloppy thinking, Americans have misinterpreted the intent of the 1st Amendment. We have come to understand that to allow religion any mention in official capacity is to endorse a religion. This is clearly wrong. With 90% of the population being Christian in one form or another, Christianity does not benefit appreciably from random official mention, nor are minority religions suppressed by such mention. Offending someone or not mentioning them by name is not illegal. If a law was passed stating that non-Christians could not walk down the street on Sundays, that is suppression. If Voodoo practitioners are told they cannot sacrifice a chicken, that is suppression. If Christians are told they cannot worship outside of their home, that is suppression. If atheists are told that by law, they must pick a religion, that is oppression. Suppression, endorsement, and oppression based on religious grounds occur in normal human dynamics, and are not generally a problem for the state to decide. It is normal, it is human, and to interfere in any way with this fundamental human dynamic is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Such laws must be banned, but such behavior cannot be banned by law.

Again, I use an example pulled from controversy concerning a cemetery of sorts. This controversy concerns the cross on Mount Soledad in San Diego. The controversy was started in 1989, when Philip Paulson sued the city, proposing that a cross on public land violates the 1st Amendment. As I have stated, it does not. To build the cross and maintain it with public funds does indeed do so. However, to tear it down, or force its removal, also violates the 1st Amendment. It must be allowed to fall into disrepair or it must be maintained by private citizens with no interference by the state, and vandalism of it should be treated as normal vandalism is, with no favoritism based on the nature of the symbol. The sight has had a cross on it for nearly 100 years and this practice was not started by the state. The land is public, which means it is for public use. As such, anyone can petition for the erection of any religious monument, and it cannot be refused. Therefore, if atheists want the officially recognized symbol of atheism (yes there is one, and it is able to be placed on VA headstones in case you are wondering) placed next to the cross, that should be allowed. That may be problematical, and messy, but that is the true practice of the freedom of religion. The state cannot interfere; even to remove a religious symbol. An inverted cross would enjoy the same hands-off approach. If no group is entirely happy with this, that is not the concern of the state. That's how the 1st Amendment works.

Continuing on, I would like to address that there should be no religious test for office. This is true and lawful according to The Constitution (Article VI, section 3). I believe in matters of religion there should be one disqualifying attribute for public office, and it has come up recently. If, for example, a candidate states that The Constitution should be re-written to officially align with the beliefs of one deity or religion, that candidate must be disqualified from achieving public office. It would not be unprecedented; we do have legal disqualifications for public office. Age and citizenship status are qualifying factors in running for office. I think this should be one of those qualifications. Such a person will be required to take an oath to uphold The Constitution once elected. An established statement of belief that The Constitution should be re-written would make such an oath impossible to take. Anyone unable to take the lawful oath for any reason must be barred from public office, or removed if their actions demonstrate that they are unable to abide by it.

I also believe that to create a legal system that provides benefits to one religion, or group of religions is also a violation of the 1st Amendment. In this case I am referring to the tax-exempt status enjoyed by churches. To put it bluntly, tax money belongs to Caesar. Therefore God has no claim to it, according to Jesus. I do know people who have churches devoted to religious beliefs outside the mainstream. To get tax-exempt status they must figuratively jump through flaming hoops. Also, the threat of tax-exempt revocation suppresses churches from promoting political views. In general this creates, again, a weaving of state and religion that is a violation of the 1st Amendment. If churches desire tax-exempt status due to charitable works, they can apply for tax-exemption based on their charity just like everyone else. To allow special status that is not available to the general public based simply on religious status, is illegal. I don't care if it is a Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu organization. Tax-exemption is based on what you do, not what you believe. On the flip side, having to suppress speech or religious beliefs to retain tax exemption places an illegal burden on the church. Best it is eliminated completely.

So there we have my thoughts on true adherence to the 1st Amendment. I doubt many are happy with it. Personally, I don't understand why. I do understand really, because I understand the puritanical foundations of America, which I will address elsewhere. I do not understand how an intelligent being can hold such a viewpoint is what I should say. To enjoy freedom of religion is to enjoy the freedom of other people's religions. To harbor resentment of anyone's expression of religion would interfere with your own enjoyment. It is not the role of government to regulate your level of enjoyment. You are solely in control of your own happiness. The 1st Amendment, by limiting the powers of government, guarantees that personal control.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
28 thumbs so far

©2008 Taliesin, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, February 2, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, July 1, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Taliesin only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Taliesin is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Taliesin of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.