Religious liberty
From WhyNotWiki
Religious liberty edit (Category edit)
Contents |
[edit] How separate should church and state be?
[Separation of church and state (category)]
http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm has some interesting thoughts and seems pretty well balanced.
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2007/dec07/holidays.html.
...
While some schools embrace new holidays in an effort to recognize every religion equally, others ban all mention of any religious holiday in a misguided effort to keep religion out of schools. Glenelg High School in Howard County, Maryland, took on the role of Grinch this year against the school's chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA). The FCA sponsored an "Operation Christmas Child" project, gathering toys and gifts for children whose parents are in jail. Glenelg's principal forced the FCA to cover the word "Christmas" on the flyers advertising the toy drive, replacing it with the word "Holiday" to read, "Operation Holiday Child."
The American Family Association (AFA), upon hearing of the principal's action, donated 1,000 "Merry Christmas" buttons to students at Glenelg High. AFA's Center for Law and Policy has also undertaken a "Christmas Project" to educate administrators and teachers on students' right to talk about Christmas at school and engage in other forms of religious expression, at Christmastime and all year long.
"Schools must not become 'religion-free zones' where the only perspective ever heard is secular and materialistic," the legal group affirmed.
[edit] { How separate did the framers of the Constitution intend for them to be?
Crosstalk America had a guest who spoke about this on 2007-01-29.
By looking at the state constitutions that came before the US Constitution, one can learn pretty accurately what prompted the law concerning freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment.
Contrary to popular belief, the USA was founded on Christian beliefs as a Christian nation.
The intent of the 1st Amendment was not to get rid of religion from society and from schools. Yet judges today are trying to purge any reference of God and religion from government, schools, etc. (the pledge of allegiance, etc.).
The intent of the 1st Amendment then? It was to prevent the federal government from preferring one religion over another.
The original 13 states each had a state religion. New York was Dutch Reformed, etc. And they basically discriminated against/kicked out those who weren't of those religions.
(Listen to it at http://64.13.218.251/shows/2007/01/ [exact link not available yet])
Regarding purging references to God from mandatory things (in some public schools, etc., yes?) like the pledge of allegiance: I am inclined to think that might actually be fair and a good idea, since it does presuppose that those saying the pledge of allegiance are adherents to a religion where God is believed in, which seems to violate the freedom of those who don't believe in God (if they have to say it, anyway)?
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992:
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."
[edit] }
[edit] { "Faith-based initiatives" -- Federal funding for religious-affiliated organizations
http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm.
Under the Bush administration, our country is experiencing a major transformation from a secular to a religious government. The President's faith-based initiative is central to this transformation and raises serious questions about church-state separation. "Slouching toward theocracy. President Bush's faith-based initiative is doing better than you think," by Bill Berkowitz, 2/6/04 provides an overview of this transformation.
In his State of the Union address, Bush renewed a call for Congress to make permanent his faith-based proposals that would allow religious organizations to compete for more government contracts and grants without a strict separation between their religious activities and social service programs.
On February 4, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for provisions in a social services bill that allow religiously based job discrimination in publicly funded programs run by churches.
...
On September 22, 2003, the White House announced new rules making $28 billion available to religious charities that proselytize and discriminate in hiring. Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry in Metro New York claims "The White House has taken what may be its boldest step yet to blur the constitutional separation of church and state." While the White House announced these controversial new rules, the media hardly paid attention.
...
That doesn't sound good.
[edit] }
[edit] Religious expression by military chaplains use / in the public square
[Freedom of religious expression (category)] [Freedom of speech (category)]
http://www.usafa.edu/isme/ISME07/Lewis07.html.
Chaplains in the military face a unique challenge in the practice of some of their respective faith rites. For the Army, the challenge to chaplains’ respective faith practices resulted from the fall-out behind the post-1979 lawsuit against the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chaplaincy by Katcoff and Wieder. Prior to the lawsuit chaplains freely exercised the practice of using sectarian references for the divine based solely on their respective convictions and conscience.
The impetus for me to write this paper stems from the early days of my civilian ministry and lasted up to the final daft of the larger thesis work this paper is based on. Since the completion of my thesis for my Master of Theology degree from Harvard University-The Divinity School another event gained the nation’s attention around this subject: a Navy Chaplain’s hunger strike to gain approval to “pray in Jesus’ name.” It is my desire to provide a better point of departure from which to address the matter at hand: public prayers by military religious practitioners, Chaplains.
A Washington Star[1] article in 1980 addressed, namely, the conscious and intentional avoidance of using a sectarian name for the divine by military Chaplains and serves as the date when the trend toward restricting the exercise of chaplains’ religious rites in the public-military square began.
During my tenure in various units, I received both spoken and tacit guidance to avoid concluding public, (ceremonial, or patriotic) prayers, “in the name of Jesus.” Army Regulation 165-1, para 4-4h, states, “Chaplains will not be required to offer a prayer, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith group.” [2] While this may seem an appropriate remedy, many chaplains find it difficult to refuse a commander’s request to provide prayer on these occasions.
It is the aim of this thesis to expand, and refine, an additional dimension to understanding pluralist expressions. The desired result is a fuller appreciation for authenticity in plural religious expressions during military ceremonial and patriotic events in which chaplains lead prayer. The goal is to engender a healthy mix, and to embrace the varied religious, and secular contributions each military member brings with her/him into the “melting pot” of the U. S. Army, specifically, and the Armed Forces in general. When service members know that there is mutual respect, and embrace for their diverse religious, and/or non-religious personhood unit cohesion reaches optimal operational readiness levels producing a high degree of fidelity to good order and discipline within the force: overshadowed only by a Soldier’s commitment to securing our national ethos of freedom.
This thesis seeks support for Christian chaplains, and chaplains of other faith groups to exercise freely the broad range of sectarian expressions in their repertoire as they perform in military ceremonial and patriotic activities. I will explore this matter by looking at what my research leads me to believe is the U. S. Army’s view of religious pluralism[3]. As well, I shall propose the option of allowing broad range sectarian expressions during military ceremonial and patriotic activities without violating the religion based prohibition clauses in our constitution.
...
My concluding word seeks to address several questions this work may raise for those who think my position shortsighted and/or insensitive to those who are a-religious or of other religious traditions. One misses the point of my argument if one thinks this. My argument is not only a call for authenticity for those called on to perform such tasks, but to expose believers and non-believers to the beauty of the religiously plural nation we all work, live, play, and die in. It is an attempt to live out the full letter of our highly valued constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. In my opinion, we lessen the First Amendment when we restrict public religious expressions.[28]
Carrying this conversation a little further, yes, most public prayers are communal. They are communal in the sense that other community members are present. Yet, this is not an excuse to permit disingenuousness. Persons must be true to who they are or their integrity is suspect. Integrity is the greater value to maintain. We expect our politicians, military leaders, and other civic officials to maintain sound ethical behavior, why should we advocate a diminished level of authentic integrity from clergy when they pray in the public square.
Additionally, “the concept of the national state”[29] absent a religious voice is a flawed idea of “the bourgeois revolutions.”[30]
The triumphant bourgeoisie wanted to make the public sphere free of religion. They claimed that the public realm could be one of ‘rational’ politics and of social emancipation. Therefore, by definition there could be no specifically religious participation in the public sphere. It was to be a realm where only open debate, rational argumentation, and logical persuasion were to be employed in a discussion of public policy issues. It was to be a “value free” realm . . . in which authoritarian, superstitious, or religiously legitimated ideas were excluded by their very nature.[31]
It is clear to the author that those who find themselves in favor of the maintenance of this bourgeois ethos will continue to object to what this thesis seeks. Yet, I challenge them to ask themselves, “why not allow religion in the public square?”
Inherent in my optimistic personality is a strong belief that the road to change begins with the first step. For the military, I believe, the public embrace, through respect and acknowledgement as valid and legitimate plural religious expressions will strengthen unit readiness. A spiritually fit Soldier is a ready Soldier. Implementation of this refined definition of religious pluralism will aid in increasing acceptance of the multicultural and multi-religious composition of our force. As Cox more eloquently states, “if [military leaders] understand and respect the religious pluralism of the United States and the fragile fabric by which persons and groups with different [or no] spiritual orientations are bound together in society, then they may be able to bring a gift that will strengthen and deepen citizenship in a democracy rather than diminish it.”[32]
Embracing religious pluralism as redefined is a step in this direction and provides support for Christian chaplains, and chaplains of other faith groups to exercise freely the broad range of sectarian expressions in their repertoire as they perform in military ceremonial and patriotic activities.
[edit] Religious liberty / Sources
Religious liberty / Sources edit
- ChurchState.org : North American Religious Liberty Association - West (Seventh-Day Adventist Church State Council)
- Crosstalk America (Christian talk radio, often has discussion about current religious-liberty issues)
- Family Research Council
- Washington Watch radio program
- Store
- Washington Watch radio program
[Religious liberty (category)] [Sources (category)]
[edit] Sites / Resources: 2ary
[edit] TheocracyWatch
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://www.theocracywatch.org/about_us2.htm.
TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. CRESP is a nonsectarian, action-based educational organization with its roots in religious dialogue, human rights advocacy, and ethical thought.
TheocracyWatch raises awareness about the pervasive role of the Religious Right in the U.S. government.
...
Susan McGreivy, Office Manager
Ms. McGreivy is a retired ACLU staff attorney without whose substantive and technical contributions this site would never have been built.
[Uh oh... ACLU. I smell trouble. But that's just my bias. I'll try to keep it in check... --Tyler]
Chip Gagnon, Researcher
Chip Gagnon is Assistant Professor in the Dept. of Politics at Ithaca College. His teaching and research are in the area of international relations. His particular interest is the ways in which right-wing forces construct a fear of others -- both internal and external others -- to impose their agendas on populations.
[I'd like to check out the veracity of this allegation. --Tyler]
