[Vision2020] Separation Of Church & State

[tbertruss at aol.com]

Kai wrote:
 
"Anyone who says that allowing religious 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 peacefully assemble and publicly proclaim their faith. Or lack thereof,
or whatever."
 
Really?  
 
I don't think you are considering all the possibilities.  Of course this subject hinges on how you define "proclaim their faith."  If I announce with other believers in the square in front of the U of I library that we worship Gaia, this is a very different example than officially renting the Kibbie Dome for worship services with communion and wine by an organized church represented by a pastor, etc.
 
Consider the following examples (from a previous Vision2020 post on 7/29/05) I wrote showing how the U of I in renting the Kibbie Dome to a religious group for worship by an organized religious church could be led into favorable treatment of one religion over another, and my discussion of religious worship on state or federal forest land, to address your concerns about religion on some kinds of public property.  There are cases where religious expression on public property does not violate the separation of church and state.  However, I think renting the Kibbie Dome for worship services does present valid concerns that this could lead to government favoring one religion over another.
 
Ted wrote on 7/29/05:

Anytime the government gets involved in religious worship, it is a potential threat to this principle, again I state, a potential slippery slope that could lead to the establishment of, or appearance of, government endorsed religion.

Let me give a few examples to illustrate what I mean:

The U of I allows Christ Church to conduct their religious services with communion at the U of I Kibbie Dome.

Next up....  

The Aryan Nations, or some religious group of similar values, insist that the U of I rent the Kibbie Dome to them to hold their religious services to be attended by thousands.  Would the U of I comply based on a principle of nondiscrimination against any religion wishing to use governmental facilities?  

You know very well the U of I would not comply in this example.

Is this not discrimination against a religion?

Should Native Americans be allowed to conduct peyote ceremonies using peyote in the Kibbie Dome?  

Can you imaging the public response if this happened?  The U of I would never allow it!

What if Islamic fundamentalists requested to rent the Kibbie Dome for a worship service attended by thousands aimed at denouncing Christianity's war machine against the middle east?  

How would the U of I approach the nondiscriminatory use of government facilities for religious worship in this example?

I don't need to answer that question.

And thus we would see the government drawn into giving favorable treatment to one religion, Christ Church's form of Christianity, or some other religion or group of select religions, that could be substituted in this scenario, thus discriminating against some religions, which outlines why the government should not be in the business of religion at all!

The U of I allowing religious oriented student "clubs" is not the same type of event as the U of I allowing organized religious worship services by specific churches.  Of course drawing a strict line between a "religious club" event and a worship service might be difficult, but I think communion with wine with a pastor who oversees a self declared organized religious church clearly crosses the line.

I would defend Christ Church's right to worship on private property if I saw that the government was denying this right, despite whatever disagreements I have with their theology and values.  I would in effect also be defending my right to worship how I see fit on private property!

As far as Wiccan's worshiping on state or federal forest land, or Christ Church, for that matter, if no one knows what they are doing on federal forest land, the government is not giving official governmental approval for their religious activity.  

I think, though, that you raise an interesting example with the Wiccan's or any religion worshiping on state or federal forest land.  The law is not always comprehensive or consistent in its applications to real world situations.  I suspect a case like this would require somebody taking exception to the conduct you suggest, which might be rather unlikely given that people go into the woods often to get away from the monitoring of the government, or monitoring by anybody.  So unless you gathered a crowd of constitutionally minded protectors of the separation of church and state to witness your worship in the woods, very few would care about the separation of church and state in this example.  I doubt it would lead anyone to think the government was officially giving favorable treatment to one religion over another, unless some sort of official "government woods worship permit" were to come into legal reality pursued by numerous religions.

Then we might see a similar problem to the one I outlined in the above examples of different  religious groups wanting to rent the Kibbie Dome.

Ted Moffett

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Kai Eiselein <editor at lataheagle.com>
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:30:06 -0700
Subject: [Vision2020] Separation Of Church & State


Bingo! And we have a winna!
To be more correct, Joan, that phrase came up in a letter to a minister who
was worried about the establishment of a state religion, as was the case in
England.
Jefferson reassured him, stating, and I'm paraphrasing here, that a
mechanism was in place to ensure a wall of separation between church and
state.
Now let us visit the article itself........
Article I:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

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.






Kai T. Eiselein
Editor
Latah Eagle
521 S. Jackson St.
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 882-0666 Fax (208) 882-0130
editor at lataheagle.com


_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050801/c3afffee/attachment-0001.htm