Freedom of Religion is its Own Enemy

World Wide Web ^ | 5/26/05 | Henry R. Sturman

[Fester Chugabrew]

It's a common claim of libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that religious conservatives use the public schools to promote creationism. I believe that claim is incorrect. The truth is that libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics use the public schools to promote atheism. Public schools are bad of course, and all schools should be private. But if there are going to be public schools anyway, they should be for all people, for evolutionists and creationists, for atheists and theists. Public schools should teach both evolution and creationism, and students should be given the choice which of those courses they want to take. It's the libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that want to take away people's free choice, in the name of religious freedom, so as to make sure that everybody is forced to learn scientific truth and nobody gets exposed to pseudo-scientific heresy. That idea is based on a mistaken view of what separation between Church and State means.

Separation between Church and State means, or at least should mean, that government will not takes sides promoting one religion over the other. Or religion over nonreligion. Or nonreligion over religion. Forbidding creationism in public schools is itself an attack on the separation between Church and State. It means the the State promotes education the way atheists want it and hampers eduction the way theists want it. My opponents will counter that public schools do not promote atheism. They're supposedly neutral and teach only science, while they teach neither atheism nor theism. Nonsense. What a school teaches is never neutral and can never be neutral. Every choice a school makes on what courses to give and how is a value jugdement on what is good. Therefore, the conflicts public schools create about what to teach can never be solved. They're inherent in the very idea of a public school and can only be solved by privatizing all public schools. The best public schools can do for now is cater to as many needs as possible, especially needs carried by large proportions of students. Not doing that, for example by teaching evolution and not creationism, is not a neutral choice.

If one interprets the Separation between Church and State more strictly, so as to mean government must not even have any indirect connection to religion, then one might indeed argue that public schools should not teach creationism. (One might then even be able to argue that people on welfare should be forbidden to spend their welfare money on religious goods or services.) But such a strict interpretation would be unfair as long as there is no Separation between School and State. For if there is this kind of a separation between Church and State, while there is no general separation between School and State, religious education is put at a severe disadvantage to any kind of other education. Why should all schools of thought about what kind of education is appropriate get a say in the public school system, except if there is a religious connection? Separation between School and State is a great idea, which would depolitisize education, via privatization. But a very strictly interpreted separation between Church and State is simply not possible or desirable, as long as government controls public schools. If they control public schools they should try to cater equally to all education needs and education philosophies, whether they be scientific, atheist, religious, or whatever.

In this regard it's the religious right that stands on the side of freedom of religion and free scientific inquiry. They fully respect the rights of atheists to teach evolution in public schools, even though they think it incorrect. Their opponents, on the other hand, do no respect the rights of theist to teach creationism in public schools, because they think it incorrect. It may be that strictly speaking evolution is not atheism while creationism is theism. That doesn't remove the unfairness of the public schools in that they do teach what many atheist want taught (evolution) while they do not teach what many theist want taught (creationism). One might argue that the principle involved is that public schools should teach science and that therefore evolution is an appropriate subject to teach while creationism is not. There are two problems with that view:

1. Many creationists believe creationism is scientific.
2. It's not true that public schools only teach science.

As to 1, I agree that creationism is bad science, or nonscience, while evolution is good science. But it's not appropriate for government to make judgements about what is science or not science. For government to do that is a violation of well established principes of free scientific inquiry. The fact that evolution is true and creationism is false is besides the point. Government shouldn't decide what scientific truth is and tell people what to do or learn based on that judgement. Using government power against religious scientism is just as bad as when the Church used force against Galileo's secular science, and this is so for the same reasons. Therefore, the most neutral position to take is that everything should be taught in public schools if there is a big enough demand for it being taught.

As to 2. Most people think public schools should teach certain things other than science, such as physical education, moral education, sexual conduct, political ideas, social skills. Therefore one may not disallow the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it's not science, even putting aside the fact that not everybody agrees creationism isn't science. The same argument would disallow many things that are currently being taught in public schools. If we single out religion as something nonscientific that cannot be taught, while say political correctness can be taught, then we are using the first amendment in a way opposite to how it was intended. Instead of protecting religion now it's being used as a bias against religion.

Creationism is just one of many subjects that could be taught by public schools. And if that's what many people want taught, it should be taught, at least as an optional subject. Allowing creationism taught does not require any law which would respect an establishment of religion nor does it prohibit the free exercise of religion, and so there's no first amendment conflict. Quite the opposite. Taxing people to pay for public schools, and then forbidding them to teach religion, limits people's funds and options for exercising religion. Precisely a law forbidding creationism in public schools prohibits to some extent, or at least hampers, the free exercise of religion.

Let me be clear that I don't think it's good that schools teach creationism, intelligent design, or other pseudoscience such as astrology, withchraft, ESP, etc. If I were to create or fund or support a school, I would argue against it doing those things. So it's not that I think it's appropriate for schools to teach falsehoods and pseudoscience. My point is that it is not for me to judge what is appropriate or not for other people. When I own my own private school, it's my own business to make those judgements. But when it's a public school, the school should serve the purposes of everybody. Not only should it serve the purposes of both those in favour of pseudoscience and those in favour of science. But, more importantly, it should recognize that not everybody will agree on what is science and what is pseudoscience. In a free society everybody is allowed to make his own judgement on that. For goverment to make that judgement for people is authoritarian. Therefore, governments should not forbid subjects being tought based on the fact that they are pseudoscience. If you give government the power to forbid something because it's pseudoscience, then they are bound also to forbid something genuinely scientific and true at some point, on the arguement that it is pseudoscience. We are all fallible, and so is the government. Power given to government to protect us against illness, unhapiness and bad ideas, even with the best of intentions, will eventually turn against us and control us.

The state is used to supply education the way atheists want it, while it cannot be used to supply education the way theists want it, but they do pay part of the taxes. The reason this is done is not because atheists value religious freedom. I'm not saying atheists don't value religious freedom. I assume they do, I'm saying that's not the reason they control the public schools in this manner. Atheists do this for the same reason that in Islamic states all education is religious. They do it because they want to force people to live wholesome lives and do and learn what is good for them. Science is good, religion is bad, ergo people must learn science and the teaching of religion must be made difficult. Every group uses state power to enforce their way of life on others. This will be so as long as there is a state. Only the theists are more honest about it. These conflicts can never be solved except by privatization of schools. But as long as there are public schools any special restrictions on any kind of teaching, whether such teachings are defended on religious, scientific, cultural or moral grounds, is inappropriate and in conflict with the spirit of the first amendment. I'm an atheist, by the way.

[orionblamblam]

> Why not dig a big hole and find out if it's really true?

Oh, I did. Dug all the way to China. Passed Hell along the way and saw the special niche set aside for Behe and Dembski.

Now: either use sense, facts and, or believe what I say On Faith.

[Quark2005]

Is it working?

Not sure; but either way, it's been a good ride, so far.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Nor are laws to be made that respect any of the establishments [teachings/precepts] of religion.

Wrong. The establishment of a religion does not mean the teachings or precepts of a religion, it means the establishment by the government of a state-supported church.

[P_A_I]

That's only the way you want it to be, joe. Give it up, and stop fighting our Constitution.

A Libertarian Constitution
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1414665/posts

[watchin]

Pretty ironic, considering the way you've wriggled out from under my two examples. You've changed the basis of the argument when you say:

"We were discussing whether people claim the constitution literally contains the words 'separation of church and state'".

No, not originally, we weren't. You were discussing that, as you "moved the goalposts". The original statement was simply this:

Yet for decades, some organizations and individuals have spread the myth that the words “separation of church and state” are found in the U.S. Constitution.

I've given you two examples. Both of them "spread the myth". There are many more. Every time an organization comments along the lines of the "constitutional wall of separation between church and state", they are perpetuating the myth.

You're argument will no doubt degenerate into defending the intentions of those who spread the myth. This was, in fact, your argument for the AP reporter. Though we cannot know for certain, it's a fair gamble that there are an assortment of intentions.

Some are simply not careful enough, not realizing that they are perpetuating the myth. Some are probably believers in the myth themselves. I happen to believe the AP reporter fits in here. And some would find it very helpful to their cause to promote the myth.

To deny that anyone spreads the myth is almost to deny the existence of the myth at all.

As for your newly defined request, well I found some of those, too. None of them mention merely the "principle":

click
One very significant reason for the separation of church and state in the Constitution was that the Founding ummm Fathers (Brothers?) were all too aware of how religious institutions and political institutions corrupted each other.

click
I suppose we must thank the founding fathers of this great nation who enshrined the separation of church and state in the constitution.

click
The separation of Church and State in the Constitution of the United States does not comprehend the spiritual reality of Indigenous Nations and Peoples.

click
The founders didn't put the separation of church and state in the constitution for no reason, after all.

click
"It's also hard to define our state as being secular since most Americans are religious." Is it that hard to define? I thought it was defined in the Constitution under "separation of church and state."

click
Yes, but the separation of Church and State in the constitution is based on the realization that the power of religion to control people by regulating what they think should not, on the one hand, be augmented by the power of the gun, or, on the other, be in any way restricted.

click
The separation of church and state in the Constitution was meant to prevent the establishment of a state religion, not to erase faith from the public square entirely.

click
This is the purpose behind the separation of Church and State in the Constitution.

click
But the Founding Fathers couldn't have been clearer about the separation of church and state in the Constitution and elsewhere.

click
Apple is equally concerned about the contradictory nature of educational policies that allows public money for creating charter schools be used by homeschoolers to teach religious viewpoints that would otherwise violate the separation of church and state in the constitution.

click
It is for this reason that you see the separation of church and state in the Constitution.

[Tailgunner Joe]

That's the way the Founders wanted it too. They endorsed religion all the time and I think they knew what the Constitution they wrote meant. It's too bad you don't. You'd rather side with the tyrannical judicial oligarchy which has usurped power it should never have had and used it to subvert our republic.

[Right Wing Professor]

I wrote

"We were discussing whether people claim the constitution literally contains the words 'separation of church and state'".

And then watchin replied

No, not originally, we weren't. You were discussing that, as you "moved the goalposts". The original statement was simply this:

Yet for decades, some organizations and individuals have spread the myth that the words “separation of church and state” are found in the U.S. Constitution.

...which is what I said. And since watchin has been unable to find a single instance of someone claiming that the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution, he has turnied this into a discussion about what the meaning of 'is' is.

I didn't like the original Clinton, and I certainly don't like the third-rate imitation. Discussion over.

[Doe Eyes]

Contrary to popular opinion, the term “separation of church and state” is found nowhere in the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other founding document of this nation.

Nor is "Freedom of Religion".

[P_A_I]

Now now joe, don't get nasty just because you can't refute my arguments.
You have basis for the silly claim : -- "You'd rather side with the tyrannical judicial oligarchy which has usurped power it should never have had and used it to subvert our republic."

Try to control yourself.

[AndrewC]

Now now joe, don't get nasty just because you can't refute my arguments.

Your additions to the Constitution don't help your arguments. Any old tyrant can add words to the document. That does not make it true.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You say I'm an enemy of the Constitution, I say you're a subverter of the Republic. That's how this works. If you can't handle getting a dose of your own obnoxiousness dished back into your fat face, then go somewhere else, retread.

You subscribe to the anti-Christian ACLU interpretation of the First Amendment - the communist notion of "Freedom from Religion." You want to substitute your own communist antagonism for religion for the freedom bequeathed to us by the founders of this nation, but Conservatives are not falling for your fictional pinko version of American history any more. You can side with the tyrants who impose their unconstitutional secular theocracy, and I'll side with the Founders and the laws of Nature and Nature's God.

[Constitution1st]

Are you kidding?! Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of this country, this freedom-loving country. We need to respect freedom, and endorse it; not the opposite!

As for whether or not the earth is hollow, they hide that information in books. Amazing what one can learn when they read a book.

[P_A_I]

I've made no "additions" to the Constitution.

[F16Fighter]

Great essay...

[P_A_I]

Now now joe, don't get nasty just because you can't refute my arguments.
You have no basis for the silly claim : -- "You'd rather side with the tyrannical judicial oligarchy which has usurped power it should never have had and used it to subvert our republic."
Try to control yourself.

You say I'm an enemy of the Constitution, I say you're a subverter of the Republic. That's how this works. If you can't handle getting a dose of your own obnoxiousness dished back into your fat face, then go somewhere else, retread. You subscribe to the anti-Christian ACLU interpretation of the First Amendment - the communist notion of "Freedom from Religion." You want to substitute your own communist antagonism for religion for the freedom bequeathed to us by the founders of this nation, but Conservatives are not falling for your fictional pinko version of American history any more. You can side with the tyrants who impose their unconstitutional secular theocracy, and I'll side with the Founders and the laws of Nature and Nature's God.

I've never said you were an enemy of the Constitution, joe. - You simply don't understand it; --- and now you've totally lost control..
See ya.

[Tailgunner Joe]

I see you are in spam mode. Good night.

[DocRock]

"Are you kidding?! Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of this country, this freedom-loving country. We need to respect freedom, and endorse it; not the opposite!"

I agree...

/rant on

Continental Congress

On Sept. 11, 1777 approved the import of 20,000 copies of the Holy Bible, in response to the shortage caused by the Revolutionary War.

"The use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States of the Union. Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible." Link

Our Founding Fathers opened the first Congress in prayer and the first Congress approved importing or printing 20,000 Bibles and now, revisionist and activist judges tell us we cannot let children pray in school or read Bible stories. What a shame. Our first law regarding public education in this country was written to teach our children to read the Bible. It was called Ye Ol Deluder - Satan Law.

I am from Muhlenberg County Kentucky, which is named after Gen. Peter Muhlenberg, seen here in this statue inside the U.S. Capitol!

Peter Muhlenberg Statue
U.S. Capitol

"In January of 1776, Muhlenberg sent word for his congregation to gather for his farewell sermon. Ascending his familiar pulpit, he preached from Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. The sermon glowed throughout with devoted patriotism as the man of God told his people of his own resolve to fight and, if need be, to die for his country. He closed his message with these words: "In the language of holy writ, there is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but the time for me to preach has passed away." Then in a voice that re-echoed through the church like a trumpet blast, he exclaimed, "And there is also a time to fight, and that time has now come." After pronouncing the benediction, Muhlenberg threw off his clerical gown and stood before his people in full military uniform. Stepping down the aisle, he ordered the drums at the door to beat for new recruits. The whole village gathered at the church to learn what strange event had turned a quiet church meeting into a scene of bustle and excitement."

---

Christians should be interested in winning souls for Christ but also preserving our heritage and the political environment that many of our forefathers fought and died for so that our religious institutions could flourish.

/rant off :)

[AndrewC]

I've made no "additions" to the Constitution.

Is separation of church and state prescribed by the United States Consitution or not?
Yes. 'Separation' is in effect directed [prescribed] in three different places. --
States are directed to have republican forms of governments, [no theocracies allowed].
- No religious tests for office are to be allowed.
Nor are laws to be made that respect any of the establishments [teachings/precepts] of religion.

Your little bracketed additions are precisely additions to the Constitution presented so as to bolster your argument. The fact that you had to add them militates against your argument.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The only thing I can easily document is the result of this flawed interpretation of our Constitution.

The Results:

In 1962-63 there was an incredible jump in violent crime, increasing over 650%. There was also a dramatic drop in SAT scores, sending a once steady 965-980 national average through the floor, dropping for over fifteen years, finally ending at 890. Child abuse shot through the roof; from being unknown to involving nearly five percent of the population, and decades later, it is still on its tremendous rise. In `72, less than 2 percent of the 12-25 year old population had tried cocaine. In `82, nearly one third of them had. There are myriad other examples. "

Nonsense. The absence of a few prayers before classes and the restriction of the posting of the Commandments of a particular religious background was not responsibly for the decay of public morality. Are you seriously trying to say that the 650% jump in crime from '62-'63 was from a Supreme Court ruling in '62 about school prayer? All those criminals were students who in one year turned to crime because they didn't recite a prayer in the morning at school?



Most of these social ills can be best attributed to the advancing welfare state. If school prayer (who's prayer, btw? Catholic? Protestant? Muslim? Some watered-down acknowledgment of a Supreme Being?) and the 10 Commandments (I am the Lord Your God, you shall have no other Gods before me... Keep Holy the Sabbath (which Sabbath?)...nah, that wouldn't be religious indoctrination) were reintroduced tomorrow, nobody would notice the difference in any of those stats.

"It is quite clear that when the founders spoke of religion, they meant Christianity. Noah Webster, a founder, said quite bluntly, "No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." Many founders made similar statements."

It just means that many founders were also of a theocratic bent.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Oh, I did. Dug all the way to China. Passed Hell along the way and saw the special niche set aside for Behe and Dembski.

Something leads me to receive your report as detached from reality. Do you know what that "something" is?

Now: either use sense, facts and, or believe what I say On Faith.

Why must it be an "either or" situation? I can use sense, facts, and still disbelieve on faith you have not dug a hole to China.