Guest guest Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-10-16-faith-edit_x.htm Posted 10/16/2005 8:12 PM > God, government and you > By Noah Feldman > Michael Newdow, a California atheist, has gained plenty of notoriety over > the past few years. He got a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court > contending that children in general — his daughter in particular — must > not recite the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in school. > Why not? Because he believes the words, which were added in 1954, violate > the separation of church and state. > You may have thought Newdow had gone away. After all, the high court threw > out the case because he doesn't have custody of his daughter. But he's > back, making the challenge again on behalf of the parents of other > children. A lower federal court has already ruled in his favor. > > Newdow is once again raising hackles and crystallizing just how much a > quintessential question — one the Framers of the Constitution thought they > had nailed — has returned to tear at the very definition of what it is to > be an American. It's a question that's more divisive today than partisan > politics or even religious beliefs: How much of a role should religion > play in public life? > > The divide > > CHURCH-STATE BATTLEGROUNDS > Ten Commandments: Display them in public buildings? The Supreme Court, > weighing cases in Kentucky and Texas, ruled in June that the > constitutionality of a display depends on its purpose and context. > Saying grace: The U.S. Naval Academy is drawing fire for its 160-year-old > lunchtime tradition. No lawsuit has been filed because the ACLU has not > found any midshipmen willing to sue the Navy over the issue. > > The Pledge of Allegiance: A federal judge ruled last month that teachers > leading public school students in reciting the Pledge, which includes the > words "under God," violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has yet > to rule on the issue. > > School vouchers: High on President Bush's agenda, the use of vouchers is > controversial because in many cases the funds will go to religious > schools. The Supreme Court ruled such vouchers constitutional in 2002, but > resistance to their implementation continues at the state and federal > level. > > Intelligent Design (ID): School boards across the country have been > battling over the new theory, which states that life is too complex to > have evolved on its own. Many scientists say ID is backdoor creationism > and is intended to undermine the teaching of evolution. Bush has said he > supports teaching ID. > The country is split between two camps. On one side are those who, like > Newdow, think that government should be secular, and that the laws should > make it so. On the other are those who believe that common values derived > from religion should inform our public decisions just as they inform our > private lives. An extreme example is former Alabama judge Roy Moore, who > put up a 2½-ton granite monument to the Ten Commandments in the state > Supreme Court building and refused to take it down, even when the federal > courts ordered him to. > > The two sides fight it out on a very basic level in debates about when > life begins — the issue in the abortion and stem cell research debates. > And when it ends — the issue that engulfed the nation in the Terri Schiavo > case. Tell me whether you think religion should play a role in government > decisions, and I'll tell you where you come out on these core debates. > > Even the ever-controversial debate over same-sex marriage is really about > religion and government. Opponents of same-sex marriage say that marriage > has a traditional religious meaning as the union of one man and one woman. > They don't want the government to change that. Supporters say that the > religious definition of marriage has no bearing on the purely legal > question of whether everyone should have equal access to a benefit given > by the government. > > These hard questions, which reach the U.S. Supreme Court so often, are > lightning rods for debate because they go to the very heart of who we are > as a nation. > > Is there an answer? > > Actually, the Framers had a pretty good one, not that either side is > reading their intent right. Both like to claim that the Constitution is on > their side and want to enlist the Founding Fathers for their preferred > position. > > The Newdow-leaners, or "legal secularists," point out that God is > conspicuously absent from the Constitution, and that the First Amendment > prohibits an establishment of religion even as it guarantees "the free > exercise thereof." They conclude that religion and government must be > separated by a high protective wall. The Moore sympathizers, or "values > evangelicals," counter that the words "separation of church and state" > also do not appear in our founding document. Reminding us that the > Founders' America was almost entirely Christian — and 95% Protestant — > they conclude that Judeo-Christian values are the true basis for our > national project. > > So, who's right? > > Both sides are only half right. The Framers believed to a man in the > importance of the liberty of conscience, and they barred a national > established religion in order to protect that value. Obsessed with taxes, > they thought that an official religion would infringe on religious liberty > by spending tax dollars for religious purposes. They also knew they could > never agree on a national religion, given their own diverse denominations. > But so long as no money was involved and the government was not coercing > anyone in religious affairs, they had no great objection to religious > symbols in the public sphere. Thomas Jefferson excepted, all the early > presidents declared public days of Thanksgiving and prayer — even James > Madison, author of the First Amendment. > > If we were serious about getting back to the Framers' way of doing things, > we would adopt their two principles: no money and no coercion. This > compromise would allow plenty of public religious symbolism, but it would > also put an end to vouchers for religious schools. God could stay in the > Pledge, but the faith-based initiative would be over, and state funds > could reach religious charities only if they were separately incorporated > to provide secular social services. > > The public could logically embrace this modest proposal, and the zealots > on both sides should think it over. Secularists want all Americans to feel > included as citizens, but right now, many evangelicals feel excluded by > the limits on their religious expression. Meanwhile, values evangelicals > should recognize that state funding of religion means their own tax > dollars are going to support radical religious teachings that they abhor. > > Our nation today is more religiously diverse than ever. No longer > Judeo-Christian (if we ever were), we are now > Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Buddhist-Hindu-agnostic-atheist. That means we need > a new church-state solution to reconcile our religious differences with > our common faith in America. The Framers' own views can lead the way — and > we should follow. > > Noah Feldman, author of Divided By God: America's Church-State Problem — > and What We Should Do About It, is a professor at New York University's > School of Law and a fellow of the New America Foundation. > > Send us your thoughts on this story by e-mailing editor (AT) usatoday (DOT) com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.