Separation of Church and State
The Mojave Cross Memorial
18-Aug-09 06:00 PM
In 2001 the ACLU and an Oregon resident filed a lawsuit claiming that the cross is a religious symbol on government property and thus is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. This set off a chain of events and legal maneuvering. In 2002 Congress designated the cross and the surrounding property as a "national memorial" to honor the fallen dead of World War I and ordered the land to be given to the Veteran's of Foreign War. The District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court sided with the ACLU that the symbol was unconstitutional and ordered the cross to be covered. The case will now come before the Supreme Court in October 2009 for a final hearing.
The main argument presented by those who wish to keep the cross in place is that the latin cross is not a religious symbol. Instead they claim that it is an international symbol that represents loss and sacrifice. They further argue that groups such as the ACLU and American's United are only interested in removing the symbol out of religious hatred for Christianity and to dishonor war veterans. They have also stated that the cross is innocuous and does not violate the first amendment in that it does not force anyone to participate in any religious ceremony. They do not believe there is any harm in having this symbol representative of ALL the veterans who died during World War I.
Here are some counter points worthy of consideration:
- The Latin cross is a religious symbol and should be treated as such. It is a central symbol of Christianity and for those who are Christian it is offensive to strip away it's sacred meaning by saying it has no religious meaning.
- Veteran Memorials should honor all of our country's veterans, not just those of a particular belief system. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, 29% of those currently serving in the U.S. military are not Christian. Our veterans come from Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim backgrounds, while some choose to follow other belief systems or profess no faith at all.
- The Constitution mandates separation of church and state. Our country's founders wanted religion and government to remain separate, which is why our Constitution requires the government to remain neutral on the subject of religion. One of the freedoms our veterans sought to protect is the right for all to practice their belief system of choice. This cross on government property goes against that principle.
- The government, in maintaining this cross, is discriminating against veterans of other faiths and those who choose no faith at all. The Mojave National Preserve in California denied a request in 1999 to erect a Buddhist shrine near the cross. This clearly shows the government's favoritism, and makes those who are not Christian feel like second-class citizens.
- The courts should remain open to lawsuits objecting to church-state violations. Some will argue that just because someone is offended by a religious symbol, he or she does not have the right to sue the government and demand it be removed. If we followed this interpretation of the Constitution, the government could display any religious symbols it wants anywhere it wants - on license plates, in public buildings, maybe even in public schools - and those forced to view these displays could do nothing about it. That's not what this country stands for and the government must be held accountable when it strips away our freedoms.
|
New Hampshire Law Exempts Religious Groups...
16-Jul-09 12:46 AM
The following article is taken directly from the American's United Church & State publication for July/August 2009. It is presented here in it's entirety and unedited. Here is the link to the original article.
---------------------------------------------------
For years, Religious Right organizations have claimed that if same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative churches will be forced to perform such unions or accommodate same-sex couples in other ways.
That’s certainly not the case in New Hampshire, where a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage contains a host of exemptions for religious groups.
HB 73 was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch June 3 after Lynch requested a series of modifications to the bill to make it clear that many of its provisions will not affect the rights of religious bodies.
The law states that religious organizations and their employees may refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and reiterates the point that religious organizations retain exclusive control over their doctrine and beliefs.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had at first balked at Lynch’s request for changes to the bill, but several members changed their minds to get the bill passed.
“Let’s vote this one last time,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Republican from Windham. “Church and state should be separate.” In the Senate, Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat representing Plymouth, said the compromise language provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”
Although the new language helped get the bill passed, it probably was not necessary. Most legal scholars agree that the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures that no houses of worship or ministers could be compelled to perform a same-sex ceremony, just as pastors may refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples who do not meet certain theological standards.
In California, advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the state supreme court upheld a ban on gay marriage passed narrowly by the voters in 2008. By a 6-1 vote, the California high court said Proposition 8 was not an unlawful “revision” to the state constitution. Such a “revision” would have required action by the legislature. Prop. 8 passed after a heavy lobbying campaign and infusion of cash from religious groups, including fundamentalist Christian bodies, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Americans United, the Anti-Defamation League and 30 other civil rights and civil liberties groups joined the effort to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, filing a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that a bare majority of voters should not be permitted to remove fundamental rights from a minority group.
AU asserts that civil governments have no business writing theological definitions of marriage into civil law. “If Proposition 8 can strip fundamental rights from gay and lesbian people by a 52 percent majority, future amendments can strip away fundamental rights from other disfavored groups based on race, national origin, gender or religion,” read the brief.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 vote, it approved the 18,000 same-sex unions that were performed during the period gay marriage was legal.
That part of the ruling angered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perkins said in a statement.
-------------------------
TD3k Commentary:
I think it is clear that the New Hampshire Law sets a precedent in the application of same sex marriage laws by clearly stating that the matter is a civil matter and does not bear on any religious organizations, nor requires them to conform to the civil statues outlined by the government. Even though it is clearly implied in the first amendment to the US Constitution, a specific exemption being included should help to quell some of the fear and anxiety expressed by so many people who felt that such a law was a trampling of their religious rights and freedoms. Clearly, this matter can be resolved in such a manner that should prove to be equitable and fair for all involved. These types of exemptions allow religious groups to maintain their doctrines and beliefs without fear of being overridden by laws designed to promote fair treatment under the law.
---------------------------------------------------
For years, Religious Right organizations have claimed that if same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative churches will be forced to perform such unions or accommodate same-sex couples in other ways.
That’s certainly not the case in New Hampshire, where a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage contains a host of exemptions for religious groups.
HB 73 was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch June 3 after Lynch requested a series of modifications to the bill to make it clear that many of its provisions will not affect the rights of religious bodies.
The law states that religious organizations and their employees may refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and reiterates the point that religious organizations retain exclusive control over their doctrine and beliefs.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had at first balked at Lynch’s request for changes to the bill, but several members changed their minds to get the bill passed.
“Let’s vote this one last time,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Republican from Windham. “Church and state should be separate.” In the Senate, Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat representing Plymouth, said the compromise language provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”
Although the new language helped get the bill passed, it probably was not necessary. Most legal scholars agree that the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures that no houses of worship or ministers could be compelled to perform a same-sex ceremony, just as pastors may refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples who do not meet certain theological standards.
In California, advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the state supreme court upheld a ban on gay marriage passed narrowly by the voters in 2008. By a 6-1 vote, the California high court said Proposition 8 was not an unlawful “revision” to the state constitution. Such a “revision” would have required action by the legislature. Prop. 8 passed after a heavy lobbying campaign and infusion of cash from religious groups, including fundamentalist Christian bodies, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Americans United, the Anti-Defamation League and 30 other civil rights and civil liberties groups joined the effort to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, filing a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that a bare majority of voters should not be permitted to remove fundamental rights from a minority group.
AU asserts that civil governments have no business writing theological definitions of marriage into civil law. “If Proposition 8 can strip fundamental rights from gay and lesbian people by a 52 percent majority, future amendments can strip away fundamental rights from other disfavored groups based on race, national origin, gender or religion,” read the brief.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 vote, it approved the 18,000 same-sex unions that were performed during the period gay marriage was legal.
That part of the ruling angered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perkins said in a statement.
-------------------------
TD3k Commentary:
I think it is clear that the New Hampshire Law sets a precedent in the application of same sex marriage laws by clearly stating that the matter is a civil matter and does not bear on any religious organizations, nor requires them to conform to the civil statues outlined by the government. Even though it is clearly implied in the first amendment to the US Constitution, a specific exemption being included should help to quell some of the fear and anxiety expressed by so many people who felt that such a law was a trampling of their religious rights and freedoms. Clearly, this matter can be resolved in such a manner that should prove to be equitable and fair for all involved. These types of exemptions allow religious groups to maintain their doctrines and beliefs without fear of being overridden by laws designed to promote fair treatment under the law.
State Constitution Preambles
11-May-09 11:03 AM
I came across a somewhat interesting e-mail the other day that focused on the content of the separate states constitutional preambles. The body of the message goes on to list all fifty states opening lines from their preambles and the dates of ratification ranging from 1776 through 1959. The e-mail makes the assertion that all fifty of the US states constitutions’ preambles make reference to either ‘God’, the “Supreme Ruler/Being’, ‘Divine Guidance’, or ‘Creator’ and that because of this then therefore the ACLU and the “out-of-control federal courts just maybe wrong”.
Of course we all know that e-mail messages such as this one are in wide circulation on the internet and many of them are nothing more than someone’s subjective opinion on any given subject. Quite often, snippets of facts and documentation are included to give a sense of authority and worthiness to the argument being proffered. This e-mail in question is no different. It seems to me that the purpose of this message is to assert the notion that since all of the state constitutions openly acknowledge God in their preambles that it is a good thing to interject religious ideals into the realm of government. While it is true that all fifty of the US states do make mention of God or a Supreme Being, or Divine Guidance in each of their respective preambles, I think it is important to point out a few other facts that are equally, if not more, relevant.
To begin with, a preamble is nothing more than an introductory statement that usually states the intent of the authors and the document. All state preambles, as well as the US constitution preamble, are very limited in scope and really carry no legal significance. In other words, they are typically never used as proofs of arguments in court cases since they are only introductory statements and make no claim to power of authority for governance.
Secondly, the e-mail fails to note or acknowledge the fact that all fifty of the state constitutions are subject to and must conform with the precepts and articles of the US constitution. If there is anything in the state constitutions that violates the US constitution then it could effectively be rendered without legal merit in a federal court of law. Also, it fails to note that there is no mention of ‘God’ or anything of the divine anywhere in the US constitution. This does not imply that the men who penned the US constitution were ‘godless’, for we know that many of them were indeed religious. It only further illustrates the concept of the importance of not mixing religious ideologies with governmental authority. I did not examine all fifty states constitutions, but I will cite the Texas constitution as an example since I am more familiar with it. In Article 4 of the Texas constitution it states that no religious test will ever be administered as a requirement for anyone to hold office in the state of Texas with the exception that the candidate must at least acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. This clause in the Texas constitution has never been upheld or applied in modern times as it is in direct conflict with the establishment clause of the first amendment and Article 6 of the US constitution. State courts do not attempt to enforce article 4, but it is interesting to point out that it is highly doubtful if anyone in the state of Texas has ever been elected to public office who did not profess a belief or a faith in God. That is a different topic of discussion, but it does illustrate the over-importance and emphasis that some people in a given electorate may place on religion. A person’s religious views have nothing whatsoever to do with their ability or their qualifications to hold office in a seat of government.
And finally, the question must be asked “what” exactly is the ACLU and the federal courts wrong about? The statement that “they may be wrong” is broad and unspecific. I would guess that the charge is aimed at the idea that the ACLU and the federal courts are interested in removing all mention of God out of government and in so doing are violating the religious freedoms of people who are religious. This of course is a tired, old argument without any merit whatsoever as long as the ACLU and the federal courts do not attempt to regulate and control the teachings and functions of the individual churches. I am quite certain that they are not doing that at all but are instead limiting their scope to governmental institutions. It is important to remember that governments are established by men for the governance of the secular and legal affairs of men. Our state and federal governments are thankfully not in the business of administering and ruling on divine laws within our court systems. By government remaining neutral in the field of religious affiliations and sectarian beliefs, the government assures without bias an even playing field for peoples of all faiths and all religions to receive fair and equitable treatment by the government in matters of secular law. It is only when people try to insert their own sectarian religious ideals into government that religious freedoms are truly jeopardized and that is what the ACLU and the federal courts are attempting to stop.