Darth Wong wrote:Publius wrote:<snip>
Nothing more is implied by the prohibition of Congressional laws respecting the establishment of a religion. It does not at all suggest a Constitutional mandate that government and religion be separate, nor was it understood to be so; in fact, Massachussetts did not disestablish Congregationalism until 1834.
The fact that there was tremendous resistance to secularism in early America is not a surprise. Nevertheless, while some interpreted it to permit abuse, the fact is that the constitution does obviously mandate that the government is not in the business of establishing religion. You can say this refers to SPECIFIC religions instead of whole FAMILIES of religions (ie- theistic ones as opposed to meditative ones), but that's hair-splitting.
Certainly, it is agreed that the Federal Government does not have the power to establish religions, but the important detail is that "establishment of religion" was understood to mean the creation of a state religion, à la King Henry VIII's Act of Supremacy of 1534. The Congress is forbidden to "establish" a religion in the sense that it cannot make an official church of the United States.
In the same sense, were the Congress to establish a family of religions -- such as, say, Christianity, or Islam (both have multiple different denominations) -- it
would constitute a violation of the First Amendment. However, the mere act of involving religion in state affairs, while not necessarily a good idea, is not in and of itself un-Constitutional.
Article VI prohibits the use of a religious test as qualification for office of trust under the United States. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion
by the Congress, and the imposition
by the Congress of laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the several States from "abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States", which includes the free exercise of religion (it should be added that to claim that "free exercise of religion" does not include atheism is fatuous and intellectually dishonest).
The Jeffersonian interpretation of that is the "wall of separation between church and state". However, this concept is not in the Constitution itself. The question of involvement of religion in politics (with the exception of the aforementioned conditions) is left to the prudential judgement of the elected official and of the electorate. In this case, it was well known that Governor Bush was a devout Christian prior to his election as President (he openly stated when seeking the Party nomination, for example, that he considered Jesus the philosopher with the most influence on his life).
The present Constitution of Virginia, adopted in 1971, specifically states (Art. I, sect. 16) that "it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other".
And the present constitution of Texas states that if you don't believe in a supreme being, you can't hold public office. So what?
The point is that, rightly or wrongly, the Constitution does not erect a Jeffersonian wall of separation. It does not go beyond the prohibition of the establishment of a religion by the Congress, of the imposition of laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion by the Congress or the several States, and of the use of a religious test to hold office of trust under the United States.
It is possible, Constitutionally, to involve religion in affairs of state. It should be noted, however, that Constitutionality does not confer propriety. Whether or not one
can is one question; whether or not one
should is another.
The question of involvement of one's religious beliefs in the execution of political functions -- that is, in the performance of one's duties as an elected official -- is best left to the individual conscience of the office holder and to the discretion of the electorate. Provided that an office holder does nothing un-Constitutional, illegal, unethical, or immoral, he or she is free to invoke Iuppiter, Mars, and all the Pantheon, or Baal, or Mithra, or Zoroaster.
Bush has repeatedly trod on the Constitution in his efforts to funnel taxpayer funds toward religious organizations, even if those organizations are blatantly discriminatory in their hiring practices. Add in "illegal, unethical, and immoral" if you like; it's kind of a blanket problem. As I said earlier, this is but one more straw on the pile.
The pharisaical argument would be that subsidy is not establishment. To be sure, however, President Bush's faith-based initiative comes dangerously close to violating the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law (disregarding entirely the question of whether or not the Congress would have the Constitutional authority to make such an appropriation, wholly regardless of the First Amendment-related concerns). While not strictly un-Constitutional, it would be inappropriate.
However, President Bush's remarks in this particular case are not overly controversial. He quoted rhetoric from the Book of Isaiah; he did not quote Theology, or philosophy. Quoting from Thomas Hobbes's discourse on the meaning of words in the first part of
Leviathan does not automatically mean that one believes that the Catholic Church is the Kingdom of Darkness and that the Pope is the Antichrist (Hobbes makes exactly that charge in the final part of
Leviathan).
