Bookman

Interesting that you would choose Tennessee, which, according to that same constitution, bans anyone who denies the existence of god from serving in the Legislature:

I wrote my state senator on this issue, and he seemed to think that because the question was not on the application for employment by the state (and therefore not enforced) that this wasn't a problem.

Bookman

Hastur

Interesting.
So the Tenn. constitution includes a section directly contradicting the U.S. Constitution?

I wonder if it's ever been challenged in court?

Toto

A similar clause in the Maryland Constitution was challenged and disallowed by the Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) -

from <a href="http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.html" target="_blank">this reference page</a>

Herb Silverman spent some time challenging South Carolina's laws requiring an oath containing "so help me God". It seems like a no-brainer, but it took him three years. <a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/silverman.htm" target="_blank">The story is here.</a>

Grumpy

Tennessee is not unique in having a religious test clause in conflict with a religious freedom clause. I figured my post was long enough without getting into that hornets nest.

Looking at it, though, I like the little "or." You can believe in God, OR you can believe in an afterlife (with karmic retribution). Or you can believe in both, but at least one will do.

Max Bane

The constitution doesn't say "...respecting an established religion." It says "... respecting an establishMENT of religion," as in having to do with the formation or instituting of a religion. It means congress can't create, enforce, or tear down any religion, nor, most likely, by extension, support one.

And, every one keeps saying Rightists this, Rightists that... I think someone can be conservative without necessarily being theocratic. Are there any leftist anti-wall'ers? It kind of makes sense... bigger government, right?

ex-preacher

As a former fundamentalist (a Rightist?) and a current atheist (does that make me a Leftist?), I think both sides get carried away on this issue. Let me make clear that I am a strong advocate of separation and I realize that you must draw the line somewhere. But, honestly folks, let's keep some perspective.

I oppose the placing of the 10C in courthouses or IGWT on our currency or stating the pledge in classes as much as the next infidel. But do any of these really spell the end of religious freedom?

It's almost funny when I realize how fundies insist that the removal of IGWT or a prayer before a football game is the prelude to the complete banishment and persecution of Christians, while atheists fear that right after the 10C are posted they will be burned at the stake.

From my perspective, about 98% of Americans agree on the twin principles set forth in the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. I know thousands of fundamentalists and I have never met one who wanted Christianity to be made the state religion. Sure, there are a handful of Christian Reconstructionists, but they are a minuscule minority even of Rightists.

Our disagreements are over the exact delineation of the boundaries. Let the beautiful process roll on - with fundies defending free exercise and secularists defending non-establishment. Let's just not get too ruffled.

BTW, is it possible that establishing a state religion might be just the ticket for marginalizing religion - it worked in Western Europe.

Toto

There are leftists on social issues who want to see more faith based funding, just because they want more funding for social programs in general, but that's about the extent of it.

You can be conservative (or more likely libertarian) without being theocratic, but the political reality on the ground in the US is that the conservatives have embraced the cause of lowering the wall, because they want more "tradition", and they want to use religion for the ends of enforcing conservative social values. They don't care much about the content of the religion

Buffman

Normally I have found myself in close harmony with "ex-preacher's" comments and views. Unfortunately I can not fully support his opinion that too many folks, in both camps, have lost their perspective and are allowing the issues of IGWT/the 10 Comds./"under God"/etc. to become overly contentious. Neither am I convinced that we should "Let the beautiful process roll on - with fundies defending free exercise and secularists defending non-establishment. Let's just not get too ruffled."

I feel sure that "ex-preacher" can recall the time when the Southern Baptist Convention was not under the leadership and control of biblical inerrantists. So how did this minority of zealous Baptist gain control of the entire Convention...and subsequently all the educational facilities and international ministries? It wasn't because there existed no contention within the rank and file. It wasn't because no one got ruffled. So how did this minority of devout fundamentalists pull it off? How did they stack the votes in their favor? How did they turn themselves from being the minority into being the majority? Is it possible that they did exactly as Romans 3:7 & 8 suggests?

I can find nothing beautiful in the current, purely Judeo-Christian, religious dogma being thrust on a misinformed and misguided public at every level of government by our elected representatives. I grew up during a period of American history when the mere thought of a politician espousing the governmental implementation of his religious dogma as the solution to complex social and cultural problems was considered tantamount to political suicide. There were no exceptions or new interpretations to the separation of religion from government. The majority of Americans of all belief systems understood that their tax money could not and would not be used to aid/benefit any religious organization for any reason or pretext. Religious organizations depended on private donations for their good deed ministries/causes...not government largess and ultimate control.

It is not the 98% of the fundamentalists that aren't desirous of Christianity being declared as a state religion that concern me. It is the 86% of the self-declared Christians in this country that don't recognize that, according to the 1991 "Encyclopedia Of American Religion," there are 1,588 religious organizations in North America of which I estimate 1,200 claim to be Christian, that concerns me. It is the current long list of purely religious issues before the state and federal legislative and governing bodies that concerns me. It is James Madison's comment in section three of his "Memorial and Remonstrance" that concerns me.

(Quote) "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" (End quote)

Thus I have personally elected to challenge all supernaturalists with as many accurate facts as I can uncover concerning their claims about "their" religious dogma's place in the founding of the U.S.Government. If that means ruffling feathers and being overly contentious, so be it. The religious right has already captured the federal administrative and legislative branches and sits poised to capture the judicial branch. (Imagine John Ashcroft as Chief Justice...for life.)

Oresta

ex-preacher:
I doubt any free thinkers regard postings of the 10Cs in public buildings as a prelude to the Second Inquisition. The issue is, as Buffman has put forth so well, the erosion of the Establishment Clause in public life. Senators Bilbos who once played the race card have been replaced with congressional yahoos who play the Jesus card to the detriment of sound government. Those who insist on - indeed force upon us - government-sanctioned religious postings and prayers are territorial animals. The intent of their message is to make it known that those in power are Christians. The gevernment is their turf. Posting the 10Cs in a court room is rather like lifting a pious leg and peeing on the premises.
I get less upset at these yahoos than I do with those people I know who support separation, but say, in effect, there is no harm in creches outside City Halls or a President's National Day of Prayer. It is their complacency about this recent, well-orchestrated assault on the First Amendment that scares the hell out of me.

Secular Elation

By "Rightist" I mean religious rightist. Yes, not all conservatives are "wall'ers," but I was specifically referring to the Religious Right when I wrote the single term above.