Discriminating Against Religion

-------------------------------------------------------- Dinesh D'Souza raises some provocative questions and inconsistencies in First Amendment jurisprudence. --------------------------------------------------------

The recent Supreme Court cases involving displays of the Ten Commandments in Texas and Kentucky produced confusing results. The Texas display was upheld and the Kentucky display was rejected. Essentially Texas was successful, and Kentucky not successful, in convincing the court that its particular Ten Commandments monument was not religious. Leave aside the peculiarity of trying to prove that the commandments that Moses brought down from the mountain, having received them directly from God, are not religious. The disheartening message of both cases, indeed of First Amendment jurisprudence, is that religious displays can only survive constitutional scrutiny if they are proven not to be religious at all.

Champions of our current regime of strict separation of church and state like to say they are merely applying Jefferson’s high “wall of separation” between religion and government. Actually, Jefferson during his presidency did not maintain such a wall, and from the founding period through World War II there were numerous forms of government subsidy for religion, publicly funded chaplains, congressionally-designated religious holidays, prayer in public schools, and so on. It seems far-fetched for today’s church-state separatists to argue that the religion clause of the Constitution was misunderstood by everyone, including the founders, for a century and a half before it was accurately comprehended by today’s activists and jurists.

But this is not my concern here. What interests me is the claim that the “wall of separation” that we have today protects religion from government interference no less than it protects government from religious interference. Indeed the Supreme Court in its rulings always goes out of its way to stress that it is being fair to all citizens, and is not hostile to religious people or to their religious beliefs. This claim can be tested by examining the two religion clauses of the First Amendment: the “no establishment” clause and the “free exercise” clause. The former prevents the government from establishing religion, and the latter prevents the government from restricting the free exercise of religion.

Since the term “religion” is invoked twice in the same sentence, it must mean the same thing in both cases. Let us focus for a moment on the free exercise clause and ask: does it protect the free exercise of religion, or does it also protect the free exercise of Secularism and unbelief? Advocates of separation of church and state are unanimous: it protects the exercise of unbelief as well as belief. The ACLU declares on its website, “The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.” Columnist Wendy Kaminer writes in The American Prospect, “Religious freedom is not simply the freedom to worship as you choose; it includes as well the freedom not to worship.” And this is what the Supreme Court has held.

Now consider the no-establishment clause and ask yourself the same question. Does it prohibit the government from establishing religion, or does it also prohibit the establishment of Secularism and unbelief? Advocates of separation of church and state are unanimous: it prohibits only the establishment of religion. In their view, government can endorse and fund any kind of secular or non-religious activity or expression, and this is allowed by the Constitution, but if government endorses or funds religious belief or activity, this is emphatically forbidden by the Constitution. Once again, this view has been adopted by the Supreme Court.

So we have an untenable situation in which the same term “religion” is given two very different meanings in the same sentence! Clearly advocates of church-state separation have construed the religion clause of the Bill of Rights in such a way as to protect Secularism as much as possible while restricting religion as much as possible. Incredibly the advocates of this double-standard seek to convince religious people that their derogation of religion actually works to the benefit of religion. In reality, there is no impartiality here, let alone sympathy for religion. Groups like the ACLU, with the acquiescence if not collusion of the courts, are actively promoting a jurisprudence of anti-religious discrimination. In a way the Supreme Court has distorted the Constitution to make religious believers of all faiths into second-class citizens.

Tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.

Dinesh D'Souza is the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. D'Souza has been called one of the "top young public-policy makers in the country" by Investor’s Business Daily. His areas of research include the economy and society, civil rights and affirmative action, cultural issues and politics, and higher education. He is the author of: Letters to a Young Conservative, What's So Great about America, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus; The End of Racism; Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader; and, most recently, The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence.

The Government sure gives a lot to Moloch worshippers.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ppprov.html

...Between January 1993 and June 1994, PPFA's revenue totalled $693.7 million. Annualized this equals $462.5 million per year, with $158.8 million generated by government contracts and grants. This was a sharp increase over PPFA's 1992 income of $446 million, $145 million of which came from government sources.

Government sources accounted for 34 percent of Planned Parenthood's total revenue in 1993.

Planned Parenthood earned an estimated $40 million from abortions in 1993, based on $296 per abortion.

Since the term “religion” is invoked twice in the same sentence, it must mean the same thing in both cases.

I agree. The term must mean the same thing in both clauses.

Let us focus for a moment on the free exercise clause and ask: does it protect the free exercise of religion, or does it also protect the free exercise of Secularism and unbelief?

It all depends on how you define the word “religion.” I incline towards Joseph Story's, James Madison's, George Mason's, Patrick Henry's and George Wythe’s definition of religion: The duty which we owe to our Creator.

Advocates of separation of church and state are unanimous: it protects the exercise of unbelief as well as belief.

It is very clear, in my humble estimation, that the intent was to protect the natural right of a person to exercise, according to the dictates of his conscience, his sentiments, opinions and beliefs regarding the duty that is owed to our Creator.

Now consider the no-establishment clause and ask yourself the same question. Does it prohibit the government from establishing religion, or does it also prohibit the establishment of Secularism and unbelief?

Once again, it all depends on how you define the word “religion.” If you define the word “religion” as did Joseph Story, James Madison and the others then the no-establishment clause means “no law respecting an establishment of the duty which we owe to our Creator. Now all we have to do is figure out what is and what is not comprehended by ” the duty which we owe to our Creator.”

Advocates of separation of church and state are unanimous: it prohibits only the establishment of religion.

I am not sure that everyone who advocates a view that they call “the separation of church and state” are all taking about the same thing.

In their view, government can endorse and fund any kind of secular or non-religious activity or expression, and this is allowed by the Constitution

I must respectfully disagree with the proposition that the government can endorse and fund any kind of secular or non-religious activity or expression. The government’s authority to endorse or fund anything is limited to the powers enumerated in the U. S. Constitution. If we adopt Joseph Story’s definition of the word “religion” and if the secular or non-religious activity involves an opinion or belief that pertains to the duty which we owe to our Creator then the secular or non-religious act is also prohibited.

For example: Congress could not recommend that the people not believe in God or that the people ought to believe in God. The belief or non-belief in God is clearly a opinion that pertains to the obligations which we have to our Creator.

If government endorses or funds religious belief or activity, this is emphatically forbidden by the Constitution. Once again, this view has been adopted by the Supreme Court.

No it isn’t. The Court has held that funding the religious opinions of the Chaplains to Congress from the national taxes is permissible.

God Bless America and the Moatengators of Co. A, 3ed Battalion, 5th Infanty Division.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.