Separation of Church and State: is it really Constitutional?

Yes, it is.  Many people try to pull the old "the Constitution doesn't say 'separation of church and state' anywhere" argument, but that just doesn't hold water.  True, those exact words do not appear in the document;  however, their intent does.

Let's start with what the First Amendment actually does say, shall we?  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and it is the meat of the matter.  What exactly does it mean to respect the establishment of religion? 

Rather than put it in my own words and have you accuse me of being a Communist-Manifesto reader (which, by the way, I am), allow me to quote the Supreme Court.  In the Court's decision on Engel v. Vitale, 1962, Justice Black said: 

When the power, prestige, and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. 

Call me crazy, but I think having Congress and the President host the National Prayer Breakfast is a pretty clear example of throwing the power and prestige of the Government behind Christianity.  As is the use of the title "National" for this event;  everyone knows that this makes it sound like an officially-sanctioned event sponsored by the Government.  Oh wait, it is. 

But Justice Black didn't stop there.  Of the purpose of the Establishment Clause, he said:

It's first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and destroy religion....The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate. 

Oooo, now that's unexpected!  The Founders chose to separate these two not to protect laws from religion but keep religion unsullied by government!  That's not an argument you hear every day.  Frankly, I think it's a bit grandiose of a statement, but the core ideology is nonetheless intact: mixing these two institutions has historically proven detrimental sooner or later.

But wait, there's more:

Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rrested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.

Case in point: the furor over the Non-Mosque Not at Ground Zero.  If there were not such widespread misconception that we are a "Christian nation," would there be such oppression of Muslims?  Another case in point: I heard some people expressing outrage that Muslims were allowed to pray on the grounds of the White House.  Upon questioning, it became patently clear that this indignation was not over the act of praying at the W.H. but that it was a Muslim prayer;  expression of Christianity would have been a-ok.  Long story short, I caught them in their own logic: anyone truly believing in freedom of religion wouldn't have batted an eyelash at this occurrence, and it was only because of a perceived State religion that these people were offended. 

Now, for those of you who may consider Justice Black a Communist, allow me to quote from the Burger Court.  In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1970), this Court developed a three-part test for determining establishment of religion:  (1)whether the program at issue has secular purpose; (2)if the primary effect is neither to advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) whether the legislation fosters "an excessive government entanglement with religion." 

Call me crazy again, but I'm pretty sure the National Prayer Breakfast could be considered excessive entanglement.  And it certainly advances Christian dogma.  We all know damned well that if the National Prayer Breakfast were sponsored by, say, Sikhs, the Tea Baggers would be up in arms over Obama and his socialist government forcing Hinduism down our throats. If the shoe fits.....

The fact that a measely two Supreme Court cases so clearly demonstrate that the Establishment Clause does in fact constitute separation of church and state should give you an idea of what the rest of the voluminous case law says.  I will continue reading it, so you don't have to.  Just check back here for more. 

National Prayer Breakfast: a Slap in the Face to the Founding Fathers

Can someone please explain to me why on earth we have a Government-sanctioned National Prayer Breakfast?  I'm sorry people, but this is just plain wrong. 

When I sat down to write this, my intent was to discuss why the President should not be attending such an event in his official capacity.  But when I did a little research, what I found was even more appalling.  While "officially" this event (actually a week-long series of events) is sponsored by The Fellowship Foundation (aka, The Family -- more on that later), but it is hosted by members of Congress!!!!  Yeah, that's right: your elected representatives are hosting a big ol' Christian meetin'.  Separation of church and state, anyone?

Not to mention that your tax dollars surely pay for, at a minimum, their time/salaries to attend these functions.  If Christian conservatives can suppress women's rights by refusing to allow taxpayer dollars to pay for birth control, abortion, and other reproductive services, then can we demand that they also don't pay for events that clearly violate separation of church and state?  That elevate the status of one religion to that of State Religion, even if unofficially? 

I really wanted to say that the Prayer Breakfast would be ok if it were non-sectarian and celebrated all religions -- but it's not.  There is no way that ANY religious ANYTHING should be sponsored or endorsed by the Government.  And yes, that includes the White House Christmas tree.  (Call me a Grinch, but I'm sure Thomas Jefferson agrees).

As if all this weren't bad enough, it is sponsored by THE FAMILY.  Forget DaVinci Code - this is the real secret society that runs our politics.  Anyone wanting to know more should read Jeff Sharlet's frightening true tale, "The Family" (handy link: http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296925694&sr=1-1). 

I can't believe I'm about to make a Dirty Dancing reference, but here goes.  There's a scene towards the end of the movie wherein Baby says to her father, "You always said I could grow up to be anything I wanted.  But you really meant someone like you."  (or something to that effect)  Such is religious freedom in the U.S. -- we are free to practice whatever we want, as long as it's Christian.  We are free to express our "values" and maybe even have them reflected in politics -- as long as they are Christian.  Separation of Church and State absolutely applies, unless you're talking about Christianity.  Because of course, we are a Christian nation!  (Not.) 

I won't go into the whole argument about the Founders being Christian versus Deist -- you can go google it if you want to kick that dead horse.  Even if they were died-in-the-wool, fundamentalist Christians, the fact remains that they established a country firmly based on a foundation of secular government.  Got that people?  S-e-c-u-l-a-r.  It means we should be free of having "Christian values" shoved down our throats by our elected officials, that we shouldn't have a single law based on them, that if the Muslims want to turn an old coat factory into a community center, they should be allowed to. 

I am really, really tired of hearing these bigots, closet gays, immoral and corrupt people telling us about Christian values.  My heathen children, who have never set foot in a Church, hold more Christian values then any of these hypocrites.  Caring for each other is the ultimate Christian value, and time and again the GOP shows irrefutably that this holds no place in their politics.

But I digress.  Just as it would be inappropriate for our President to publicly preach about Jesus or the Bible, so it is inappropriate for him to attend the Prayer Breakfast in an official capacity.  Ditto for any elected officials.  If they want to participate on their own time (and dime), then of course they should be free to do so.  But to attend as the President?  To post it on the White House website?  To use taxpayer dollars in any way?  If the Founders are watching any of this, they must surely think they have gone to Hell.

A Mosque at Ground Zero: Appropriate or Not?

I saw Mayor Bloomberg talking today about how allowing a mosque at Ground Zero was required by freedom of religion and separation of church and State.  He said things like (and I'm paraphrasing here), "if we give in to popular thought and don't allow it, then we allow the terrorists to win."  He reminded us of our Muslim brothers and sisters who died that day and those who grieved with us after.  He said so many things that ring of truth.

Except that they don't. 

Of course I believe in freedom of religion and speech, and separation of church and State.  I also believe that we need to be careful of playing into Al Quaeda's hands with our stupid, pig-headed reactions.  I recognize that there is no guilt-by-association for the Muslims who live and die here.  However, all that does not mean I am onboard with the idea of a mosque at Ground Zero.

It just feels like a big, fat slap in the face to allow a mosque there.  Frankly, I don't see why ANY religious building needs to be there -- it was a church to the dollar bill before, so why change that now?  I have heard that the idea is to have a mosque there to help educate people that bin Laden and friends do not represent the majority of Islam -- and I totally get that.  I support that concept. 

But does it have to be at Ground Zero?  Why not someplace nearby, but not ON the premises?  I say this not out of some misplaced anger, fear, or bigotry toward Muslims;  I say it because it seems disrespectful and in poor taste.  It seems to dishonor the memory of that day. 

How would we feel about putting some sort of Japanese cultural or religious structure at Pearl Harbor?  How do millions of Jews (and others!) feel about the presence of a cross at Auschwitz?  How would the residents of Hiroshima feel if we built a giant cathedral in their town?

I am all for educating the (generally stupid) American masses about Islam and pointing out that 9/11 was perpetrated by fundamentalist nut-jobs.  However, I just cannot find anything within myself that makes it ok to put a mosque at Ground Zero. 

What I find most interesting about this issue is that all the liberal folks on, say, MSNBC, are saying that opinions like mine are bigoted.  I saw Russell Simmons on Keith Olbermann just today, talking about how the push to ban a mosque from G.Z. was some awful, racist, unethical thing.  Really?  I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call "overdone political correctness" on this one.  Please tell me how it is at all ok, or even necessary, for a mosque to be there? 

I realize that this plays into a bigger phenomenon -- that of people trying to ban mosques in their towns.  Now that is bullshit.  If there are Muslims in your town, then they deserve a place of worship.  Fuck you and your pantywaist, uneducated fears.  In fact, I am quite pleased to see some sort of Islamic center in my own town.  Good for them!

I am not going to say it's Right or Wrong to have a mosque at Ground Zero.  I don't think anyone would go to Hell if we allow one.  What I will say is that it is poor judgment.  Seriously, do the proponents not see how this could be exceedingly offensive?  Are people really going to play into the stereotype of overblown political correctness? 

I'm sorry, but I just feel this is wrong.  I just can't see how it's ok to have a mosque there -- and it's not because I'm some Tea Bagger crazy person.  It is just a slap in the face to all those who died, period.  Out of respect we should not allow it on the premises of Ground Zero.  Near enough by that people can go to it, absolutely.  But GZ itself, I'm sorry.  Let's just rebuild the financial buildings that we need and move on.

Would Somebody PLEASE Mess with Texas?

Wanting to secede from the country is one thing.  Electing a boob like George W. for governor is one thing.  Forgetting that there's a state in the Union over twice as big as yours is one thing.

Rewriting textbooks so they are filled with lies is another.

In case you've been living on the Moon this past week, or maybe in Texas, here's what's going on.  The State's Education Board has revised its education standards.  And honey, it makes Kansas' removal of evolution look like child's play.

Highlights include:

• Removal of Thomas Jefferson.  That's right kids: one of our most prominent and critical Founding Fathers has been erased from the record.  Why?  Because he promoted separation of church and state. 
• Propagating the "we are a Christian nation" myth.  While Jefferson is out, the Fathers in general are in.  But only because they had some loose rooting in Judeo-Christian foundings.  The fact that they were Deists will be conveniently ignored.
• No Freedom of Religion.  Students will not be taught that the Constitution prohibits the State promotion of one religion over another.
• False vindication of right-wing abusers like McCarthy.  That's right.  Texas kids will now learn how poor McCarthy was "blacklisted" by the liberal media, when in "fact" his communist witch-hunt was "necessary."
• Rewriting post-Reagan sociopolitical history.  Students will learn all about the magnificent "conservative resurgence" that Dear Father Reagan ushered in.  Thank god he helped us get rid of all those pesky, liberal thinking hippies of the 70's.  According to the new version, liberal thought is virtually nonexistent. 

And of course the usual slag of revisionist ideas that don't deserve further mention here.

Now, if this stupidity was limited to Texas, I'd say who cares.  Let them turn their kids into bigger idiots than they themselves are.  But the situation is far more sinister. 

Texas is the second largest buyer of school textbooks in the country.  The publishers, eager to make a dollar in our marvelous, free-enterprise system, cater to the whims of the biggest buyers.  So if Texas wants books full of lies, the rest of the country gets them too. 

Sadly, this incredibly important story has received little coverage, even from the progressive media.  While health care dominated (as it should), this story didn't even rank second.  Ed Schultz spent all day talking about Tiger Woods.  Randi Rhodes talked about Neal Horsley's admission that he f****d a mule.  I heard Thom Hartmann mention this the other day, but it was a footnote in the main discussion. 

Now don't get me wrong.  I love all three of the aforementioned people.  But it was a serious lack of judgement to let this story slip by.  I'm especially looking at you, Ed.

I don't know what can be done now.  I, for one, will make sure that my two kids know better.  And I will keep screaming the truth here, there, and everywhere.  I hope you do too.  Because if we don't, we're lost.  in two or three generations, the Truth will be gone forever.