Don Roach

It should not be supposed that keeping government and religion separate somehow means the government endorses atheism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. It is one thing for the government to endorse the idea that god(s) exist or, alternatively, endorse the idea that god(s) do not exist; it is quite another for the government to take no position on the matter and respect the right of each individual to freely decide for himself.

Doug, For the sake of argument let’s say that most individuals in Cranston have freely decided that they wish the banner to remain where it is.

If the government takes the position that the banner should be taken down…is the government’s non-position on religion en effect a de facto atheistic position?

The Constitution places certain matters beyond the purview of the normal electoral and legislative processes. Our individual rights, for instance, are not up for majority vote. The government is constrained to act according to the Constitution REGARDLESS of whether those on one or the other side of an issue amount to millions or dozens or one.

By refraining from maintaining religious banners, the government is simply refraining from promoting religion and is not thereby promoting atheism. Now if it put up a banner proclaiming there are no god(s), that would be another matter; THAT would be promoting atheism.

Doug – Re: ‘our individual rights are not up for majority vote’. From a historical perspective this is false…indeed, our individual rights ARE up to majority vote. Consider Jim Crow laws and the current debate surrounding gay marriage. One group says it’s a ‘rights issue’ while another calls it a ‘definition issue’. Going back further, we’re nearing the 100 year anniversary when a majority of states voted to allow women the right to vote. Historically, you can’t make the argument that rights are not up for vote by the majority.

In this case, the government in forcibly removing the banner is not taking a non-stance towards religion but an atagonistic one. The judicial branch is not forcing the banner to be placed there nor requiring members join the church down the street. Instead, residents of the community saw fit to express themselves through the banner that is now being removed. Such removal is akin to support of atheism in that non-religion equals the absence thereof.

Don,

Oh, come on. Surely you don’t dispute that the Constitution protects certain individual rights from government infringement, regardless of whether the government acts by majority vote. That undeniably is one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution. Women’s rights, ironically, is perhaps the easiest example. Until 1920, states could (by majority vote in their legislatures) allow or disallow women to vote in elections. With the 19th Amendment (proposed by two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states), the Constitution established their right to vote and assured that no state, even by majority vote of its legislature, could abridge that right.

It is much the same with respect to separation of government and religion. The government cannot, by majority vote or otherwise, promote or otherwise take steps to establish religion in contravention of the Constitution.

You speak of the “residents of the community [seeing] fit to express themselves through the banner.” It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class or principals ordering displays of banners in school auditoriums), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical. Here, the banner plainly was displayed by the school itself and not some private individual(s).

You object that “forcibly removing the banner is not taking a non-stance towards religion but an atagonistic (sic) one.” Once it is determined that the government violated the Constitution by placing the banner there in the first place, what would you have the government do? While some, like you, may perceive removal of the banner as evidence that the government is antagonistic to religion, we cannot decline to cure a violation of the Constitution in order to avoid offense to those with that mistaken impression.

My point regarding the majority is that the Constitution is a social contract. The majority of citizens believe certain rights are conferred upon people and that government has a responsibility to protect/provide certain freedoms. The definition of those freedoms has evolved since the signing of the Constitution. That’s my main point and specifically to this question, the signers didn’t want a federal religion, a number of states had established churches that were well within the bounds of the Constitution at the time.

As attitudes changed and cultural values evolved different rights and responsibilities were established. That’s the beauty of the Constitution, it’s organic and pliable enough to survive the ever changing US culture.

Nonetheless, I hate to see the Constitution used as a tool to undercut the majority when the majority are the ones whose ideals are reflecting in the Constitution by and large. Before you attack that, the majority believe in the free exercise of religion, free speech, and women’s right to vote. I am not saying the majority will tyrannize the minority by default. All I’m saying is that any founding document should reflect the ‘will of the people’. In this case that was challenged/overturned and I believe it was done in error.

While the First Amendment limited only the federal government, the Constitution was later amended to protect from infringement by states and their political subdivisions the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection of the laws. The courts naturally have looked to the Bill of Rights for the important rights thus protected by the 14th Amendment and have ruled that it effectively extends the First Amendment’s guarantees vis a vis the federal government to the states. While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments could extend the Bill of Rights’ constraints to state and local governments.

I agree with your overarching thesis that the founders would not establish a government that is inherently at odds with their religious convictions, which were largely Christian in nature. Moreover, given the republican nature of our government, I think it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government–in both the founders’ time and today–largely reflect Christianity’s dominant influence in our society.

That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion. By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing individuals to freely choose and exercise their religions and thus allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. As noted above, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religions, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people’s expression of political will in a republican government. To the extent that the people’s values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite–the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity’s influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that–and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow “lock in” (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.