The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a complaint against Clemson University and head football coach Dabo Swinney and his staff, claiming "unconstitutional behavior." According to the complaint, Swinney organized a means for players and coaches to go to "church days." He also scheduled team devotionals and invited former Clemson player James Trapp to be team chaplain and gave him access to the entire team for Bible studies.
According to the Wisconsin foundation, all of these items are horrifying violations of the Constitution. According to the university, who has not allowed coach Swinney to comment, each item is purely voluntary. No player is forced into taking part in any religious activities. There is obviously more to come from this story, as we're just in the early stages of the complaint.
Now, I'm a pretty religious guy...but these Freedom From Religion people have some ideals that strike me odd. According to their website, they are based in "Freethought Hall." They call themselves "Free Thinkers." I guess they believe anyone who believes in God or any god is a barely-functional simpleton. Only by shirking the shackles of the Lord can someone truly freely think.
Their website has the tag line "Protecting the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state." That's fantastic, except that "separation of church and state" is not a "Constitutional principle." The Constitution's First Amendment states that "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." I don't see separating church and state in there.
Actually, the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" does not appear in any founding documents. Not the Declaration of Independence. Not the Constitution. No, it appears in a series of letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association (Danbury, CT). The letter was sent in October 1801. Going back to the dark days of religion and government in England, the Baptists had long supported separating Church and State. They wanted the separation of church and state to keep the state out of the church as much as to keep the church out of the state. (Does that make sense?)
For years ever since people have tried to make the "separation of church and state" a Constitutional statement. Even as religious as I am, I know it's a bad idea for any religion to run the government. Just look at any theocracy to see how damaging that can be. That said, I just cannot go along with the atheistic idea that any and all government officials must check their religion at the door and never mention or think or rely on their faith during the execution of their duties. If Clemson's counter-claim is correct, and the religious activities were voluntary, then I would say I support Swinney in this. If he forced anyone to attend these events, then my opinion would be different.
The fact that the Freedom From Religion Foundation got involved just shows that they have nothing better to do but sit around and try to find some religious activity to attack. Just check out their website. You'll find out very quickly that they're not really the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They really should be the "Freedom From Christianity" Foundation.
1 comment:
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.
That the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.
Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
Post a Comment