Chad

Anti-separationists often argue that the First Amendment only prohibits the government from naming an official religion but does not preclude mixing religion and government where issues such as the 10Cs and prayer are concerned. However, I'm curious as to what these people think the founding fathers thought would happen if an official religion is named that the founding fathers placed such importance on "only" precluding this possibility. What do they think prohibiting the naming of an official religion actually prevents if the government can still pass laws favoring religion, including certain sects, without actually declaring a favorite? Are these people ignorant or disingenous? I'm mean, how can anyone believe that the government is actually allowed to favor religion so long as it does not declare a favorite religion?

Thieving Magpie

I'm being the Devil's Advocate here, as this isn't what I actually believe, but:

Perhaps the 'founding fathers' just did not want the Church to rule over the people directly. If the majority of people within a democracy were Christian, or just plain religious, than they would not have a problem with 'religious' laws being passed by the government such as prayer in schools and what not.

After all, prayer in schools hardly equates with oppressive tithes to Rome or something of that nature...

Majority rules, no matter what. Majority Christian? Christian politicians, and Christian laws can be passed. Done and done.

Toto

In this largely secular age where people tend not to take religion too seriously, Christians tend to blur the distinctions between their different sects. But at the founding of the republic, the tension between different sects of Christianity (Quakers, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, not to mention the Catholics) was significant.

The point of the first amendment is not to let the majority dictate the practices of the religious minorities.

The founders realized that any attempt to promote one religious practice would necessarily have to take some stance on a religious issue, and offend one religion or another. It's like the "non-sectarian" prayer that is so bland it has no religious content, and therefore offends those who actually believe in something.

chrislee

The establishment clause is worded "establishment of religion", not "of a religion". Which makes it
generic. But in any case, the country was founded on the freedom of the individual from the tyranny of t he majority. This cluase just spells it out explicitly in in one particular area.

lisarea

Exactly. But have you ever tried to explain that this country is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic founded on democratic principles? People literally roll their eyes at you, as though it were some minor nitpick or technicality.

Many, if not most people seem to believe that mob rule is the law of the land. And often, it is, but it's not supposed to be.

All too often, I think we genuinely overestimate people. I think the reason that separation debates fall flat so often is that, simply, people do not understand even this most fundamental principle.

atheist_in_foxhole

Most Americans can't even find Europe on a globe. How can we be surprised when they don't understand a complex issue like church/state separation?

Thieving Magpie

Well, you know.. it can be difficult to find, all tucked away down there..

lisarea

Sure, the details are complex, but the basic concepts could hardly be any simpler.

However, I think the even more basic issue is the fundamental structure of the government. People don't give a crap about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because they don't understand its role, because they don't understand the difference between a mob rule democracy and a constitutional republic.

I honestly think we need to take these arguments a couple of steps back and explain first how the US government is set up before we can get into separation issues.

PS: What is 'europe'? Is this some French thing, or what?

Thieving Magpie

No, no, France is part of Canada...

Oresta

We often forget that, well after the ratification of the Constitution, vestiges of colonial theocracies were still extant in this new republic, First Amendment notwithstanding. The first state constitution, written by John Adams for Massachusetts, set out criteria for public office that included being not only Christian, but a Protestant one at that. In parts of New England, citizens of all and no religions were still being taxed to support the Congregational Church. That, of course, was what the Baptist minister was objecting to in his letter to Jefferson that prompted Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" response.
So, had there never been the genius of the Bill of Rights, it is very likely that the religion of the state would have initially been Congregationalist, with some compromises bartered early on with the Anglican South. I leave it to others to write the history that would have followed out of regional conflict and struggle that was shaped by religion rather than States Rights.