themistocles

Entirely agreed. But I have heard numerous times from friends who are likeminded insofar as being irreligious who seem to have great reservations about "enthusiastic" Christians from being appointed. When those reservations are reflected in political opposition, it is tacitly a "religious test". For no different reasons than "being an atheist" is a political liability. With the understanding that political opposition is different from legal denial, of course, but limitations in law aren't necessarily required to exact unfair limitations in reality.

SLD

I respectfully disagree with your position, Vylo. The Constitution mandates a strict separation of church and state and there is no such thing as a "little" or "temporary" violation. Let's put it this way: a teacher leading her public school class in prayer does not cost you a dime and doesn't last very long. Nevertheless it is a gross violation of C-S separation.

A judge wearing a cross would also be a serious violation - it creates the appearance of favoritism and prejudice on the part of the judge. Discrimination by judges on the basis of religion would be clearly unconstitutional. He's not the grand inquisitor of the catholic church, but a judge who has to decide cases without regard to people's religious beliefs. Anything which gives even the appearance of bias is unacceptable. Of course, if he wears it underneath his robe, that would be a different matter since a litigant would not be aware of it.

SLD

StrictSeparationist

I agree with all this, of course, but I did just want to note that Vylo is, intentionally or not, echoing the argument that has provided the stuff of inconsistent dicta and angry dissents from conservative judges for years. Sometimes termed a de minimis violation, and sometimes identified as "ceremonial deism", there has been a theory going around for the past 40 years or so that there are certain types of church-state violations that are merely symbolic and thus permissible. Such musings are predicated on a view of the Establishment Clause as a mere complement to the Free Exercise Clause, a view which I find inconsistent with the plain language of the First Amendment. It persists mostly because very few judges are willing to acknowledge that strict church-state separation is desirable for its own sake, and not just because it has the incidental effect of ensuring that government does not interfere with the right of the citizenry to practice faith in whatever way it chooses. Unfortunately, this flawed conception of the Establishment Clause has been practically the only one given credence by the judiciary ever since the beginning of stricter enforcement of the religion clauses in the 50s and 60s.

Vylo

I see your point. Temporary or permanent public religious displays would be innappropriate. I still don't see a problem with personal religious displays (religious symbols displayed on ones own person or personal workspace) in government building. I think stepping outisde of those boundaries however (A cross an over the door of a wing of a building) would be inappropriate.

themistocles

I don't know, I don't see how a Nativity Scene is anything but harmless, either. I think those who are religious and part of government can and should be allowed a reasonable level of "public religion" if it's done tastefully. IE, Nativity scene in Christmas is just...Christmas-ish. Again, I think obvious common sense is more worthwhile than clear cut "do's and don'ts".

Toto

Tasteful public religion - like nailing the Easter Bunny to the cross?

How about a Nativity Scene with a tasteful sign explaining that the whole thing is a myth?

:banghead:

Buffman

Vylo

Do you support the U.S. Attorney General's "personal" religious practices at the Justice Department? What if he were your boss? Would you tell him that you felt that some of his personal practices were unconstitutional...or would you simply remain silent because of his "nature's God" right to express those personal beliefs at any time and place? Would you attend his "voluntary" morning prayer and bible reading meetings just to be seen rather than be considered a non-supernaturalist by your immediate bosses and peers?

IMO, there is only one "common sense" approach to CSS. Individual expressions of religious dogma must left outside the workplace by the servants of the People. The moral/ethical standards of the elected employees are evaluated and weighed during every voting period by how well or poorly they have served the People...all the People.

It is "We the People," not nature's God or any other supernatural entity, that formed this union (government).

themistocles

I'm not too familiar with Christians who believe in an "Easter Bunny crucifixion" or will state that a basic tenet of their religion is that it's a myth.

That some of us has decided on our own that it is doesn't change what is appropriate or inappropriate.

Jewel

I dissagree, themistocles. I do not find nativity scenes to be all that tasteful -- especially when City Hall puts one on their lawn. If an individual wants to put up something like that in their own yard -- fine. If they must put up something christmasish on state owned land -- there are secular alternatives.

The First Amendment is what makes such displays inappropriate -- not how any of us feel about the displays. Things like nativity scenes or crosses or the 10C 's on state property promote religion. And more than that they promote one religion, favoring one over any others or none at all. And that is where the problem lies.

themistocles

I'm not arguing against using secular alternatives, but I can't claim to have my blood boil at the sight of a cross or Nativity scene, or whatever. Granted, it's not "my government", but if I were to travel abroad, I would almost expect to see public religious displays. As an atheist, I don't feel "oppressed" by the site of the Nativity scene at Christmas time. And not to say that I don't think there are things which aren't "over the top", it would be easier to think of hypothetical examples of them than what is objectively and patently innocuous.


Well I feel the conflict is not with the display but the real effect of the display. If a politician is known to be very religious, but is a competent public servant, then I don't think it should be surprising or harmful if that person references their religion. It becomes un-Constitutional and truly bothersome if that person will enforce their religion on others contrary to the public good.

I don't have a particular opinion 10CC displays and such, I would probably agree that to not display them would err on the side of caution, but I don't think shrieking at the faintest sign of religion is worthwhile, fair, or helpful. It reeks the danger or risk of de facto, socially instituted religous tests for public office.