Alonzo Fyfe

One way to argue for separation of church and state is on the basis of attacking religion; to argue that because such belief is at best wrong and possibly sinister, it should not be forced on its citizens.

Such an argument would likely be effective, if one’s intention was to bring down another part of the wall separating church and state. Ninety-five percent of the population is theist in one form or another, so presenting the case as anti-theistic is certain to encourage that majority to support the opposing position. This includes a majority of the judges.

If a judge finds a particular breach in the wall between church and state favorable, he can easily find sufficient precedent in cracks already defended in court. He can cite the fact of religious slogans on money and religious vows in the Pledge of Allegiance. Legal texts are like religious text in that both require interpretation, and both have enough ambiguity for a person to find whatever interpretation they favor.

I do not think it is a coincidence that professional demagogues seeking to weaken church/state separation use this tactic. Their public-relations professionals have likely conducted studies and learned that, if they can succeed in casting their opponents as anti-theists, then they have a better chance of getting their programs passed.

And each time an atheist makes his case in anti-theistic terms, it drives the 19 theists against the principle he is defending, and 1 atheist to support it.

Another way to argue for the separation of church and state is to base that argument on the First Amendment. The problem here is that the argument assumes what needs to be proved. When a judge hears a case, or a legal scholar examines it, neither the judge nor the scholar finds anything useful in, “This is a violation of the principle separating church and state because it is a violation of the principle separating church and state.”

Ultimately, the only type of argument that has any practical significance is one that allows a person to be a theist and, at the same time, a supporter of church/state separation. It must be friendly to religion, not hostile to it.

Such arguments are not difficult to come by. The original supporters of church/state separation at the time of the Constitution were theists. They were theists who had suffered through a long and very bloody century of bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants in England. They were theists who had left the 30-years war not long past; a conflict that saw large parts of Germany depopulated by 30% for the crime of having the wrong belief. They were Quakers and Pilgrims whose ancestors came to America from the prisons of Europe.

A defense of the separation of church and state is best served by providing not only an assertion as to the constitutional problems of violating the separation. It should be accompanies by an explanation as to why the separation is important, and why it was important to the founding fathers.

It should mention, for example, Thomas Jefferson’s claim that enforcing religious beliefs through law serves only “to make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites.” Little argument is needed to find both the hypocrisy of atheists pledging allegiance to “one nation under God”, and the foolishness of those who think that providing this pressure is a great victory.

And I would like to see what happens when those who seek to bring down the wall separating church and state cast the founding fathers in the role of anti-theists.

Toto

I think you are arguing against a straw man. Most of the people in favor of separation of church and state are religious, and think that separation of church and state is good for religion. <a href="http://www.au.org" target="_blank">Americans United for Separation of Church and State</a> is headed by a minister.

Most of the legal cases supporting the separation of church and state have been brought by members of minority religions, not atheists.

Alonzo Fyfe

My case specifically concerned how atheists can best present their case -- in a way that helps the theistic allies that you mention, as opposed to presenting the case in a way that makes the job more difficult for those theistic allies.

Jamie_L

I agree with this philosophy. In converstation with people who support (or don't care about) school prayer, I always say this: Don't give the government the power to teach your kids how to pray. That's your business. Just because you agree with the government's prayer-teachings now doesn't mean you will agree with it years down the road. The last thing we need is a beauracracy teaching our kids religion.

I think this goes over a lot better with theists.

Jamie

Toto

I don't know any atheist who argues (in public) for separation of church and state by arguing that religion is evil or should be restricted. * Many of us may feel that in our hearts, but we know that it is not a politically astute position. It is also not a legally defensible position. Relgion is privileged under the Free Exercise clause, even while it cannot get government support under the Establishment Clause.

We as atheists owe a lot of our religious freedom to Supreme Court decisions that were brought on behalf of minority religions, in particular Jehvah's Witnesses. The Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment is part of what guarantees our freedom from religion. We have to accept that as part of the total package that guarantees us our freedom.

You can contrast that with European countries, which tend to have established churches, but a much higher incidence of non-belief. We have had discussions in this forum on whether the European system or the American is better.


(* Of course, I didn't know Madalyn Murray O'Hare. I think the religious right would have created her if she hadn't existed. They are still forwarding emails attacking her.)

liquid

This argument might be fine in an American context, but abroad it holds no water, simply because the first amendment doesn't!

I think that to establish a truly generic strategy some more thought has to go into it, and I suspect it will result on trying to play on the positives of secularism and linking fundamental religion to unacceptable activities (i.e. terrorism).