Seperation of Church and State, how wide-ranging is it?

[weemadando]

We're seeing the White House putting up the 10 commandments...

But what about having to swear on the bible to officially be put into your position?

Or opening all meetings of parliament with a prayer?

What about campaigning in churches, or with the support of churches?

How far does the seperation go in the US (if at all)?

[Alyeska]

Some of what you mention is against the first ammendment, but has not been fully dealt with. Some like the swearing on a Bible is totaly optional. You can swear your oath to office without any religious invocation.

The prayer bit while technicaly a religious term, several courts have already decided that you can't be descriminatory and that anyone should be eligable. One town recently had an Atheist do the opening prayer. Several bigoted Fundies walked out claiming Atheists have no right to US citizenship.

[Lord Zentei]

Some of what you mention is against the first ammendment, but has not been fully dealt with. Some like the swearing on a Bible is totaly optional. You can swear your oath to office without any religious invocation.

Can you swear on the Satanic Bible or the Necronomicon (not that I'm planning to, mind you)?

The prayer bit while technicaly a religious term, several courts have already decided that you can't be descriminatory and that anyone should be eligable. One town recently had an Atheist do the opening prayer.

Question: was it a Christian prayer or some other religion?

Several bigoted Fundies walked out claiming Atheists have no right to US citizenship.

I understand that Bush-the-elder maintained this position also.

[Jalinth]

We're seeing the White House putting up the 10 commandments...

But what about having to swear on the bible to officially be put into your position?

Or opening all meetings of parliament with a prayer?

What about campaigning in churches, or with the support of churches?

How far does the seperation go in the US (if at all)?

The campaigning in churches is prohibited more on the tax side than anything else. The IRS tries to enforce the concept that charities are supposed to be non-political (they are supposed to be doing something, not lobbying). The logic is that the government should not be funding (through donation tax credits) political lobbying and activism. However, this line is often blurred.

My understanding is that if a church is willing to forgo donation tax credits (you can donate to it freely, you just don't receive any tax benefits), it can be as political as it wants and can afford to be.

Otherwise, the separation depends alot on who is in power - the more religious they are, the thinner the separation. Some areas (like prayers in parliament, etc...) it is pretty much up to the legislators since courts will rarely intrude on administrative matters of the legislative/executive branch unless they are incredibly offensive and discriminatory.

[Durandal]

But what about having to swear on the bible to officially be put into your position?

Violation. It elevates the Christian faith above all others. It is true that you can request to swear on something else (at least, in the States), but the government putting a Bible there by default and then forcing anyone who does not wish to swear upon it puts that person on the spot and reduces that person's credibility in the eyes of lots of people.

For example, lawyers would never advise their clients that it's a good idea to request that they be sworn in in a completely secular manner (omitting the "so help you God" part and the Bible altogether).

Or opening all meetings of parliament with a prayer?

Violation. It elevates the Christian faith above all others. Legislative sessions should be purely secular affairs with no prayer at all.

What about campaigning in churches, or with the support of churches?

Trickier subject. I honestly think that churches funding campaigns would fall more under the auspices of federal campaign finance laws. In the cases of a church or corporation funding a campaign, I believe that it takes power away from the people. As far as I'm concerned, there should be very strict limits placed on campaign donations, especially large ones. They amount to a form of bribery.

[tharkûn]

Violation. It elevates the Christian faith above all others. It is true that you can request to swear on something else (at least, in the States), but the government putting a Bible there by default and then forcing anyone who does not wish to swear upon it puts that person on the spot and reduces that person's credibility in the eyes of lots of people.

By law, The Oaths Act of 1978, requires that the government's criteria for oath's are whatever professions are most binding upon the individual affirming or swearing. The use of the Bible and the phrase, "So help me God" both require positive assent by the individual swearing.

For example, lawyers would never advise their clients that it's a good idea to request that they be sworn in in a completely secular manner (omitting the "so help you God" part and the Bible altogether).

Lawyers also never advise their clients to have dopey haircuts, wear offensive clothing, or any of a number of things that might alienate the jury. In reality the most adamant people against the swearing of oathes upon sacred scriptures are religious fundies (JW, Orthodox Jews, Quakers, etc.). If you insist to be sworn in a completely secular manner, more often then not, you are extremely religious with some religious objection to swearing oaths.

Really it is more about meeting the jurors' expectations about the court procedure from what they've seen on TV rather than religious identification.

Violation. It elevates the Christian faith above all others. Legislative sessions should be purely secular affairs with no prayer at all.

No it doesn't elevate the Christian faith, all manner of such bodies open with all manner of prayers. Even atheists can and do give such invocations. Since the inception of such prayers at the first congress, they have been viewed as non-proslytizing and the courts have upheld that tradition.

[Durandal]

By law, The Oaths Act of 1978, requires that the government's criteria for oath's are whatever professions are most binding upon the individual affirming or swearing. The use of the Bible and the phrase, "So help me God" both require positive assent by the individual swearing.

And by default, they use the Christian Bible, which means they're saying, "Christianity is our first choice, but we'll put up with you other folks if we have to." That erodes the neutral stance on religion. There's nothing wrong with the government providing that service for the individual if requested, but the Bible should not be the default.

Lawyers also never advise their clients to have dopey haircuts, wear offensive clothing, or any of a number of things that might alienate the jury. In reality the most adamant people against the swearing of oathes upon sacred scriptures are religious fundies (JW, Orthodox Jews, Quakers, etc.). If you insist to be sworn in a completely secular manner, more often then not, you are extremely religious with some religious objection to swearing oaths.

And if you're an atheist, you must actively refuse swearing on the Bible. Say you've got two scenarios. Scenario 1, the witness is presented with a Bible to swear upon and refuses, saying he wishes to be sworn in in a non-religious way. The jury immediately notices, and the witness' credibility is potentially damaged because he actively refused a religious swearing-in.

Now you get Scenario 2, where the default method of swearing in is simply asking "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" without being required to touch some ridiculous tome. The witness says "Yes," and the trial procedes.

Scenario 1 puts a non-religious witness in an awkward position where he must either swear against his faith or risk damaging his credibility.

Really it is more about meeting the jurors' expectations about the court procedure from what they've seen on TV rather than religious identification.

Yes, and the government puts non-religious people in unnecessarily awkward positions. There is no rational justification for presenting everybody with a Bible, because the government is not a Christian one.

No it doesn't elevate the Christian faith, all manner of such bodies open with all manner of prayers. Even atheists can and do give such invocations. Since the inception of such prayers at the first congress, they have been viewed as non-proslytizing and the courts have upheld that tradition.

Appeal to tradition and popularity. Opening legislative sessions with any kind of prayer sends the message that the government prefers religion over non-religion. Opening with a specific religion's prayer (like how Congress always opens with a Christian prayer) elevates that religion over all others.

[Enforcer Talen]

for one thats diced me up, what about military chaplains? Id say get rid of the congress one, but having a preist seems important to some of those in the serivce.

[Aaron]

Violation. It elevates the Christian faith above all others. It is true that you can request to swear on something else (at least, in the States), but the government putting a Bible there by default and then forcing anyone who does not wish to swear upon it puts that person on the spot and reduces that person's credibility in the eyes of lots of people.

It's not just the States. When I took my enlistment oath for the Canadian Forces, I had the choice of swearing on the bible or the flag. I chose the flag.

[Aaron]

for one thats diced me up, what about military chaplains? Id say get rid of the congress one, but having a preist seems important to some of those in the serivce.

The military is obligated to provide chaplains for each faith. In recent times, at least in the Canadian Forces they have spent less time on religious matters. They tend to be very busy counselling soldiers with PTSD. And they recieve the appropriate training for it, all paid for by the military.

[Durandal]

for one thats diced me up, what about military chaplains? Id say get rid of the congress one, but having a preist seems important to some of those in the serivce.

As far as I know, the chaplains in the Army administer to any faith -- or ideally they should. Judeo-Christian intolerance has prevented certain religions from being recognized as such, thus not compelling chaplains to administer to soldiers of those faiths. But hypothetically, there's nothing wrong with a chaplain who can administer to any soldier of any faith who requests it.

It becomes a problem when the government starts "officially recognizing" religions. For example, declaring that Wicca and Satanism are not religions, but Christianity is. Under this system, a Wiccan or Satanist soldier would be left out cold by the chaplain, which is a clear case of religious discrimination.

But either way, chaplains do not run around proselytizing, nor do they run up to wounded soldiers and give them Christian last rites, regardless of whether they request it. This is basically what the government does by automatically presenting a Bible for people to swear on.

[Slartibartfast]

The prayer bit while technicaly a religious term, several courts have already decided that you can't be descriminatory and that anyone should be eligable. One town recently had an Atheist do the opening prayer.

Question: was it a Christian prayer or some other religion?

I think he prayed at logic and reason to keep stupidity and superstition away or something.

[RedImperator]

for one thats diced me up, what about military chaplains? Id say get rid of the congress one, but having a preist seems important to some of those in the serivce.

I would imagine the presense of the padre is good for a lot of soldiers' morale. If you ARE a believer and you're about to go into battle, and a lot of soldiers are, it's probably nice to have someone to invoke God's help, and and someone who'll make sure you get your last rites. I'm a strict separationist and technically, the Army paying a priest probably violates that, but a soldier's job is hard enough without some civilian back home taking away a source of comfort because it violates an abstract principle.

[frigidmagi]

Let me blunt. I would not have served if there were no Chaplins.

[weemadando]

I don't have a problem with chaplains in the military, they serve a vital role...

[Zeond]

From wednesday's Fresh Air on NPR, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick said that the US came very close to establishing secularism or areligion as the states "religion" but now the line is shifting back in favour of religionists. A long clip but some interesting soundbites as well as slight contradictions. He also discusses the excomunication, although he doesn't call it that, of politicians who favour abortion.

Link: http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php ... 4&prgId=13

[HemlockGrey]

There's nothing wrong with the government providing that service for the individual if requested, but the Bible should not be the default.

I think that, if anything, federal and state officials ought to be required to take their oaths on a copy of the Constitution. I get annoyed every time I see a President sworn in with a bible (so...3 times so far), because, I mean, logically, it doesn't make a lot of sense. He's supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution, why doesn't he swear to that?

[Coyote]

US Army Chaplains are also trained to serve as general morale welfare councilors for the non-religious. The Chaplains I've all met are non-confrontational in their religious views-- some members of active faiths complain that the military chaplaincy is watered down to the point of irrelevancy.

We have some Wiccan soldiers in our battalion, and our Chaplain actually made a fuss to try to locate a Wiccan priest or priestess somewhere on post for their rites. There were none, so he switched gears and did some research to see what the Wiccans needed to do their own rites with a lay leader.

But this is all about the individual quality of the Chaplain-- some might not lift a finger. Most Army Chaplains though realize that sooner or later, the welfare of every soldier in the unit is a reflection of his or her job. A female Chaplain I met in Taji busted her ass to provide me with all sorts of Jewish items, even stuff I never thought to ask about, even though I was the only Jew that she knew of on the post.


-- As for the rest of society?

It seems that with the schools, if there is a religiously-activist Administration, like we see now, they are giving up some of the loud fights over changing the public schools and instead encourage the setting up of a parallel, alternate system-- religious schools that are funded by a variety of means.

So we end up with a growing move towards a duplication of effort, but one being secular, taxpayer-funded while the other is religious and privately funded but in a very roundasbout way does have some taxpayer subsidy going on (ie, tax vouchers).

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't mind Army Chaplains. I'm not religious, but many in the military are, and they should be taken care of in that regard. It's not like Chaplains only conduct the ceremonies for themselves. The only Army Chaplain I know, who's retired and was in the Vietnam era, made it his business to be able to know the basics of every religion practiced by his unit, even though he went to Seminary to be a Catholic Priest. For a soldier on the battlefield, he explained, whether he was called Father or not was largely irrelevant. The Jewish soldiers in his unit still talked to him about religious matters for instance, because even if he wasn't a Rabbi, a Priest will do in a pinch when you are up to your ass in a rice paddy. The one atheist in his unit talked to him too, and it wasn't an "there are no atheists in foxholes" thing, but rather because the Chaplain's job is be someone for soldiers witch inner turmoil, even if it isn't spiritual in nature.

I don't think that Chaplains violate a church and state thing because of that. They are very often holy men from a particular religion, but they aren't out there promoting it, at least very few of them are. They take care of the morale wellbeing of their unit, which is religious for many people.

[Durandal]

I don't consider chaplains to be a violation of the establishment clause. They are a service that the government provides to soldiers who want it. And in a combat situation, morale is a key factor. Chaplains help morale for religious soldiers, and they can serve as counselors for non-religious soldiers, so I don't see the problem. It's not like non-religious soldiers have to continually refuse a chaplain's aid or intervention, like non-religious witnesses do with the Bible swearing.

[Edi]

I don't consider chaplains to be a violation of the establishment clause. They are a service that the government provides to soldiers who want it. And in a combat situation, morale is a key factor. Chaplains help morale for religious soldiers, and they can serve as counselors for non-religious soldiers, so I don't see the problem. It's not like non-religious soldiers have to continually refuse a chaplain's aid or intervention, like non-religious witnesses do with the Bible swearing.

Couldn't put it better myself.

In the Finnish military you swear your oath of service either by religion or by your own conscience and the flag, and the default is that if you're a member of some religion, you swear that oath. Being in the position of not having quit the church though I'm completely atheistic, I was in the Lutheran Christian religious swear-in ceremony, but since I don't give a fuck about religion and I refuse to swear by something I don't believe in, I just recited the words of the secular pledge. With nearly 200 others reciting at the same time, it was not as if anybody noticed.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

The fact that Army Chaplains must provide services in faiths other than their own (if asked) is why they don't violate the Establishment clause. Until such rules are imposed upon "faith-based charities", they do violate the Establishment clause.

[Dark Hellion]

Most importantly, without Chaplains we wouldn't get a reroll on the charge!(Sorry, someone had to bring a 40k joke into all this Chaplain business)