Fundamental Violations of Separation of State and Church
examples of how religion intrudes into our lives in violation of the U.S. Constitution
A Monumental Indecision
a brief examination of two recent Supreme Court decisions on the display of the Ten Commandments
Testimony on Civil Marriage
given to the Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee by Minnesota Atheists in support of separation of civil and religious marriage
Fundamental
Violations of Separation of State and
Church
by August Berkshire,
copyright 2004
Opening
statement by August Berkshire, president of Minnesota
Atheists, as part of a panel discussion on American
fundamentalism at the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire.
Sponsored by the College Freethought Society, October 19,
2004.
There are many ways in which religion intrudes into our
lives, and almost all of them violate separation of state
and church. Here are some examples:
Presidents adding “so help me God” to the oath
of office, when the phrase is not in the oath as it appears
in the U.S. Constitution.
Chaplains paid for with government money. Prayers being
used to open government meetings and functions.
Religious oaths that witnesses are pressured to take when
testifying in courts, promising to tell the truth “so
Help Me God.” Yes, you have the right to ask for a
civil oath. However, you have to wonder if that will create
prejudice against you in the minds of the judge and jury.
“In God We Trust” being added to our coins in
1864 and to our paper money in 1957. “Under
God” being added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.
Ten Commandments monuments and plaques being placed on
government property, many of them in the late 1950s to
coincide with the release of the movie, The Ten
Commandments.
Madonna and child (Virgin Mary and infant Jesus) artwork on
U.S. postage stamps.
Environmental laws based on the religious belief that we
should exploit the planet because the world is going to end
soon anyway with the return of Jesus. (This was stated
rather explicitly by James Watt, who was the Secretary of
the Interior under Ronald Reagan, and who wanted to strip
mine the national parks.)
Public money for tax credits and/or vouchers for religious
schools. This is bad enough, but it is only the first step
in the Religious Right’s attempts to dismantle the
public school system.
Attempts to get the unsupported religious doctrines of
creationism and intelligent design taught as science in the
public schools.
Young Earth Creationist books being sold in government
authorized bookstores at the Grand Canyon National Park.
These books describe how the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000
years old and how Noah’s Flood carved out the Grand
Canyon.
Giant crosses on publicly owned hilltops. Small crosses on
city, county, and state government seals.
The Boy Scouts of America being granted special privileges
by governments at various levels, including recruiting in
public schools, all the while demanding a religious test
that excludes atheists and gays.
Parole boards favoring prisoners who have had religious
conversions over those who haven’t. Courts ordering
drunken drivers to attend counseling or face jail time
– not a bad idea – but then giving them as
their only free option Alcoholics Anonymous, a faith-based
organization.
Faith-based organizations using government money to
proselytize and discriminate. In the past, religious
charities like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social
Services received governmentmoney, but they were separate
from their parent religious organizations and were not
allowed to discriminate or proselytize.
Mergers between public hospitals and Catholic hospitals,
where the Catholic rules end up being adopted. This means
no contraceptive, sterilization, or abortion services.
No emergency contraception for rape victims at Catholic
hospitals, and pressure from the Religious Right to make
emergency contraception unavailable at public or other
private hospitals as well.
Attempts to outlaw abortion and, barring that, to make it
very difficult to obtain, either through unnecessary legal
hurdles or terrorist threats and actions against doctors
and clinics. This sends the message that the church owns a
woman’s body (or the government does, acting as an
instrument of the church).
Abstinence-only sex education in public schools, which
leaves young people unprepared to deal with the realities
of life.
Religious Right muting of the dangers of overpopulation,
because this would obviously lead to teaching about
contraception. Catholic and Religious Right success at
reducing government funding for the distribution of condoms
in the Third World, thus encouraging overpopulation and the
spread of AIDS.
Lack of government funding for embryonic stem cell
research, which may cure diseases such as
Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes.
Opposition to voluntary euthanasia, thus condemning people
to intolerable situations and robbing us of our human
dignity to decide our own fates.
Opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. Opposition to
equal rights for gays and lesbians.
Religious tax-exempt status, meaning that we pay more
because they pay nothing.
And now these fundamentalist religions want to be able to
endorse political candidates andstill retain their
tax-exempt status.
This really adds insult to injury: the American people will
be asked to subsidize groups that want to promote
politicians that will take away our First Amendment,
privacy, and equal protection rights.
Religious fundamentalists often accuse gay people of
wanting “special rights,” when in fact all they
want is equal rights.
In contrast, I think I have demonstrated that it is the
religious fundamentalists who have been granted special
rights in this country. They have been able to use the
government to force their religion on everyone.
The attempts and successes of fundamentalist Christians to
co-opt the government represent a failure, not an
achievement.
It says that that the Christian faith is not persuasive
enough for you to buy it merely through persuasion –
therefore they have to use the government to force it on
you.
These paragons of virtue stole the last presidential
election and they’re working on stealing this one.
Beware when “God” trumps all.
A
Monumental Indecision
by August Berkshire,
copyright 2005
On June 27, the
US Supreme Court came to opposite conclusions in two cases
involving displays of the Ten Commandments on public
property. In both cases Minnesota Atheists was part of
amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs written by the
Atheist Law Center of Alabama.
In one case, McCreaiy
County v. ACLU, the court
correctly ruled (5-4) that Ten Commandments plaques inside
two Kentucky courthouses were unconstitutional.
Writing for the majority, Justice Souter stated, "the
divisiveness of religion in current public life is
inescapable. This is no time to deny the prudence of
understanding the Establishment Clause to require the
Government to stay neutral on religious belief, which is
reserved for the conscience of the individual." He noted
that a lower court found that "the Counties offered no
support for their claim that the Ten Commandments
'provide[d] the moral backdrop' to the Declaration of
Independence or otherwise 'profoundly influenced' it."
In the other case, Van Orden v.
Periy, the court
decided (5-4) that a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas
State Capitol grounds was okay since it had been there a
long time (it was "historical"), was only one among
seventeen monuments (it did not overly promote religion),
and that no one had complained about it until recently
(thus it was not coercive).
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist called it
a "passive monument that Texas has erected on its Capitol
grounds." However, he admitted that, "Of course, the Ten
Commandments are religious -they were so viewed at their
inception and so remain. The monument therefore has
religious significance."
Concurring with the majority, Justice Breyer stated, "As
far as I can tell, 40 years passed in which the presence of
this monument, legally speaking, went unchallenged... Those
40 years suggest that the public visiting the capitol
grounds has considered the religious aspect of the tablets'
message as part of what is a broader moral and historical
message reflective of a cultural heritage."
Dissenting from the majority opinion, Justices Stevens,
Ginsberg, and Souter noted that the tablet begins with the
phrase "I AM the LORD thy God."
Justice Stevens wrote, "The sole function of the monument
on the grounds of Texas' State Capitol is to display the
full text of one version of the Ten Commandments. The
monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any
event in the history of the State." He added, "The message
transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This
State endorses the divine code of the 'Judeo-Christian'
God."
In a pleasant surprise, Justice O'Connor, who is often seen
as a conservative judge, voted against the displays in both
cases. In her concurring opinion in McCreaiy
County v. ACLU, she stated,
"It is true that many Americans find the commandments in
accord with their personal beliefs. But we do not count
heads before enforcing the First Amendment."
The court did not address cases such as the one that
existed in Duluth, Minnesota, where an outdoor Ten
Commandments monument was not part of a larger display.
(That monument was moved to private property last year.)
The court also did not address the fact that people of
other religions or atheists are unlikely to have an
opportunity to display monuments with their point of view
regarding religion. How likely is it that there would ever
be a monument promoting Islam or the Humanist Manifesto III
on the Capitol grounds of any state?
August
Berkshire is the public relations representative for
Minnesota Atheists. He was interviewed about the Ten
Commandments decisions for a half hour on The Nick Coleman
Show, Air America radio in Minnesota, AM 950, June 28,
2005.
Testimony
on Civil Marriage
given by August Berkshire on
March 26, 2004
Some of you may
find inspiration from the Torah, from the New Testament,
from the Qur'an, or from other religious sources. But I
hope, like me, that you find inspiration from the idea in
the Declaration of Independence that we hold this truth to
be selfevident: that all people are created equal.
Created equal in the eyes of God, if you believe in a god,
but certainly created equal in the eyes of the law.
Some of you and your constituents may oppose extending
equality in civil marriage to all adults, based on your
religious beliefs. But today you are not sitting in church
pews; you are in a committee whose job it is to secure
equal civil justice for all Minnesotans.
There is no contradiction in having a personal religious
view that says one thing, while realizing that others must
be free to reach different conclusions. And let's face it:
if we take religion out of the equation, the dispute over
civil marriage disappears.
Marriage has both a religious meaning and a civil meaning.
Let religions define the religious meaning of their
religious marriage ceremonies as they see fit:
Let religions prohibit or allow interfaith marriages; Let
them prohibit or allow divorcees to get married; Let them
prohibit or allow same sex marriages.
There are times when a certain rule is right for a
religious marriage, but wrong when applied to a civil
marriage. For example, prohibiting interfaith marriages
might be right for some religions. But to make that the law
of the land would violate our civil liberties.
Don't let a particular brand of religion deprive all adult
Minnesotans of their basic right to a civil marriage. That
oversteps the bounds of separation of state and church.
Imagine asking the people of Minnesota to vote on whether
Jews should be allowed to get married. Or blacks. Or
Christians. Or gays and lesbians. It's preposterous,
because marriage is a basic civil right that should be
available to all adult Minnesotans.
What is being attempted here is to encode religious law as
civil law. To make certain Jewish, Christian, and Islamic
fundamentalist traditions the law of the land, while
ignoring other, more liberal religious traditions. The
state is picking and choosing among religious beliefs.
Instead, the state should get out of the religion business,
and into the business of equal protection under the law.
The Minnesota constitution states, "Government is
instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the
people . . ." This amendment is at odds with that purpose.
A vote for this amendment is a vote against the Declaration
of Independence. I urge you to the patriotic thing: defeat
an amendment that divides us rather than unites us.