[Vision2020] Separation Of Church & State: Examples To Defend A Strict Principle

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Phil et. al.

Phil wrote:

"The doctrine of separation is there so that your distaste for them does not 
allow you to use the weight of the state and its police powers to suppress 
them from doing what every other person has a free right to do."

The separation of church and state doctrine assures that no one can use the 
powers of the State to interfere with or deny anyone the right to worship as 
they see fit on private property, within certain boundaries.

This principle in fact denies religion the use of government facilities to 
promote a particular religion over another religion, which is a slippery slope 
that certainly happens when the government allows religious services within its 
domain, as the examples I will offer below demonstrate conclusively.  

This principle protects all citizens rights to follow any religion they want, 
or no religion at all, without the government establishing any appearance or 
reality of a State endorsed religion. 

I do not think that having money to rent a government building for a 
religion's worship service is a reason to ignore the separation of church and state, 
even if the government has been allowing this conduct in the past.  If the U of 
I allows religious services to be conducted on its property, it is violating 
the separation of church and state.  This is different from the religion class 
I took from Professor Nick Gier at the U of I, a clearly academic, not 
worship oriented, exploration of numerous religions around the world.

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050729/3c474c34/attachment.htm