Posted by
Raven on Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:01:22 PM
It is my contention, as stated previously, that the more a
false, or invalid, premise is stated as ‘fact’ the more it becomes accepted as ‘reality’.
An example of this is the following concept, at least as it is commonly thought
of in today’s society.
There can be no expression of Faith or Religion in a place
that is associated at all with the State.
Also commonly referred to as the ‘Separation of Church and
State.’
Where exactly does this concept originate? First we need to
look at the two most relevant pieces.
1) The 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
2) Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
The concept of "Separation of Church and State" is
generally discussed as political and legal principle derived from the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof . . . ."
The idea of separation is commonly credited to the
combination of the two clauses:
1) The establishment clause: Generally interpreted as
preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax
dollars in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or
religion generally.
2) and the free exercise clause: Which ensures that private
religious practices are not to be restricted by the government.
The effect, of prohibiting direct connections between
religious and governmental institutions, while protecting private religious
freedom and autonomy, has been termed the "separation of church and state."
There are two separate views on this.
The first approach is called the "separationist"
or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the
clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in
any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination.
The second approach is called the
"non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation.
The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one
religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into
religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the
Free Exercise Clause.
I would consider myself the latter, to some degree.
In doing some reading and research about the subject and I
understand where the ‘separationist’ is coming from, yet I do not completely
agree. What I believe has happened is that the ‘separationist’ view has been
co-opted and used for other purposes. A lot of which does have the appearance
of being ‘anti-religious’.
The following is from a website that states and defends the ‘separationist’
point of view and answers the question: Website (To be fair it does not appear to have been updated since 1997)
Don’t separationists want to eliminate religion from public
life?
“Absolutely not. If separationism means anything, it is that
people should have the freedom to act publicly on their religious beliefs
without coercion from the state. This would include the right to vote and run
for public office in accordance with one's religious beliefs. More generally,
separationists are aware that religion has profoundly influenced the culture
and morality of this nation; it is natural and proper that people would
identify with that influence, and use it to order their lives.
Nevertheless, the First Amendment had the effect of
forbidding anyone from using the government to pass sectarian legislation
(i.e., legislation designed to establish religious belief by law). One's decision
about how much we should spend on welfare, for example, might well be
influenced by one's religious beliefs, but it would surely be unconstitutional
to require people to attend church as a condition of welfare. Granted, it is
sometimes difficult to know just where to draw the lines between sectarian and
non-sectarian legislation, but such lines do need to be drawn. Separationists
believe that the religion clauses of the First Amendment serve as an adequate
guideline for resolving most of these disputes.”
Most of which I agree with and makes sense. What I do not
agree with is how it has been taken to such a degree that is has today. Hence
where Perception has evolved into Reality.
It seems we have arrived at a point where it is no longer a
separation of Religion from Government but where Religion is to no longer even
be Acknowledged.
Has Freedom Of Religion become Freedom From Religion?
It seems to me that
this ‘inviolate line’ is not very clear cut, nor do I think those in the
Kingdom would do anything to make it clearer. Why would they? There is no
benefit to them to do so.