[Vision2020] Separation Of Church & State

[Joan Opyr]

On Aug 1, 2005, at 10:30 AM, Kai Eiselein wrote:

> Simply stated the Article forbids the government to impose a religion 
> or to
> ban the practice of any. It does not say that one can only practice 
> one's
> faith in private or on private property.
> Anyone who says that allowing religous services on campus is a 
> violation of
> "separation of church and state" is full of hot air.
> The U of I campus is publicly owned property, therefore, any religious 
> group
> may peacefuly assemble and publicly proclaim their faith. Or lack 
> thereof,
> or whatever.
> What next? The banning of religous services on ALL public property? 
> Many
> cemetaries are public property, are religious graveside services going 
> to be
> banned at them? I think therewold be more than a little public outcry.
> Whatever Jefferson's intent, the law of the land does not disallow the 
> use
> of public buldings or property for religious reasons. If a public 
> building
> can be rented by secular groups, then it can be rented by religious 
> ones.
> This "separation of church and state" phrase has been thrown about so 
> much,
> that the uninformed mistakenly assume that it is a law.
> The law simply removes the government from establishing or favoring one
> religion over the other. Nothing more nothing less.
>

Aw, that was a trick question, wasn't it?  You had a hidden agenda, you 
rat, you!  Listen . . . or "Hwaet!" as the Old English would say . . . 
no one has banned religious services on any public property in Moscow, 
much less ALL public property.  Doug Wilson was/is free to rent the 
Kibbie Dome or to occupy Friendship Square or East City Park or the 
rooftop of NSA (right next to the Shroud of Turin) and loudly proclaim 
his faith for all the world to hear.  But you hit a sticky wicket when 
you begin discussing "religious practices" on public property.  What if 
Doug had rented the Kibbie Dome not to provide communion wine to his 
flock but to perform a bris (a circumcision)?  Or what if he and the 
congregation were planning to lick toads or puff peyote?  Both are 
ancient religious practices among aboriginal peoples -- and that's the 
key word here, practices.  Belief is one thing; practice is another.  
Where do we draw the line?  Does state law regarding the service of 
alcohol to minors conflict or abridge Doug's religious rights and 
freedoms?  Which takes precedence?  As Bruce said, we look to the 
courts to decide these matters.

That said, I would note that we already legally and Constitutionally 
abridge all sorts of religious practices, both public and private.  
Polygamy is not allowed in the United States, and yet it's an essential 
part of the faith and practice of several religious groups -- Islamic, 
fundamentalist Mormon, those Old Testament, patriarchal marriage folk.  
Would you argue, Kai, that a mass polygamous marriage in the Kibbie 
Dome could or would be Constitutionally sound?  Would you support this 
use of a state-owned building?

These are not black and white issues, as some seem to think.

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.auntie-establishment.com