The Scobleizer Weblog has a piece on the proper relationship of the State to religion(s). The author takes what I would consider an extreme view of the Establishment Clause, wherein he argues that the State should have nothing to do with any religion, that it should reject any relationship to religion.
Rob does have some other points. For instance, he says that we should consistently deal with all religious displays. Implicit in his arguments is an [sic] "display them all, or display none" point of view. I totally agree with that, although I'd take the "display none" point of view. Governments should not establish religion. At least that's what our constitution says. So, government officials. [sic]You know, teachers, staff, mayors, senators, etc should not do anything that favors one religion over another. And, yes, I include Atheism in that bunch.
Yeah, I know, our money says "in God we trust" and they "swear in" presidents and other elected officials over bibles and such. Personally these are rituals that are repugnant and should be removed. They are unconstitutional on their face and they are a slap in the face of the millions of Americans who do not believe them (or believe differently).
Insofar as he argues that the state needs to reconsider the implicit support it gives any sort of deism by requiring people to swear in on the Bible in court or in other rituals, Scoble is only partly correct. Yes, the Bible can be used for swearing in, but I have often seen people refuse to swear in on the Bible. I've seen some judges remove Bibles from their courtrooms and have simply required an oath of honesty from the witness. Presumably, an atheist president would not need to be sworn in over a Bible. While I agree that we could do away with the practice of swearing people in by way of a religious text in secular courts, I don't think it's accurate to state that the use of this symbol is mandatory and universal.
Scoble's next point is that the state should not have any role in the establishment of religion.
Instead, focus in on what Rob's asking for. He wants it to be OK for schools to establish religion. Market it. Push it. Think about it. A teacher who is allowed to make her class sing a "Christian" song. Hello, what about the Muslim kid in the back row? What about the atheist kid? What about the Jewish kid? What about the kid who believes in some new-age religion? The JW [Jehovah's Witness] kid (they aren't allowed to celebrate Christmas, by the way)?
The question this raises for me would be the nature of Scoble's position on the Establishment Clause vis a vis the use of school vouchers. If the full voucher program is allowed, it will be the case that federal funding is used to benefit religious schools, whether Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Are we to expect the state to take such a strong stance on the Establishment Clause that this school choice program must fail? I suggest that it should not, that the practice of using school vouchers to pay for schooling at any school that meets minimum educational standards is acceptable because it does nothing to favor any belief over any other (including the lack of belief). Still, it's interesting to see what those with strong views on the Separation of Church and State think about issues like this.
See also The Devil v. Roy Moore and Equal Justice Under Law: More on Justice Moore.
Recent Comments