Secularism makes a tentative comeback in the USA
The issue of church-state separation in the United States has come to the fore again with several developments this week.
On the credit side, President Barack Obama decided that, unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, he would not be centre stage for the “National Day of Prayer” – which was yesterday (Thursday). All Mr. Obama did was to sign a proclamation “honouring” the day, which was invented in 1952 by Billy Graham. For the past eight years, President George W. Bush invited selected Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House East Room, where he typically would give a short speech and several leaders offered prayers.
Obama White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday that the president is simply reverting back to pre-Bush administration practice. “Prayer is something the president does every day,” he said. “We’re doing a proclamation, which I know that many administrations in the past have done.” Pressed by reporters as to the lack of a formal ceremony, Mr. Gibbs said non-participation was Mr. Obama’s choice.
This does not mean that President Obama has gone fully secularist, however. For although he has angered conservative religious leaders with his lack of enthusiasm for the prayer day he has also disappointed the Freedom from Religious Foundation for not scrapping the idea altogether.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation launched a lawsuit at the end of Bush’s second term to have the event declared unconstitutional. But the Obama administration has joined Republicans in asking the judge to dismiss the case.
Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-Director Annie Laurie Gaylor welcomed Obama’s more scaled back observance but said she has been shocked by his administration's strong defence in court of the prayer day.
And even religious leaders have got the idea that the prayer day is not necessarily a wonderful thing. J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said: “It is not the government's job to tell the American people what, where or when to pray or even if they should pray. The problem with the National Day of Prayer is that it is an official act of the government urging citizens to engage in a religious exercise.”
Walker said religious people do not require the government’s stamp of approval for their religious practices. “A day of prayer is more appropriately called for by pastors, rabbis and imams among us – not civil magistrates, Congress, or even an American president,” he said.
Rabbi Stephen Fuchs of Congregation Beth Israel said his congregation would not be involved in the national day of prayer. “The day has historically had a decidedly Christian focus,” he said, “which makes us feel excluded as Jews. I believe that’s why the Obama administration is demurring. It is sad to me that in 2009 a day of prayer would exclude, not just Jews, but significant portions of the American religious population as equal participants — invited simply to tag along is not an invitation that is welcoming or encouraging. Instead, it emphasizes differences in American culture rather than the values we share.”
Meanwhile, the White House acknowledges that it asked Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, to cover up prominent Christian symbols for President Obama’s economic speech recently. The symbols, the letters “IHS” which stands for Jesus Christ, and a cross, are engraved on a pediment that stands behind the stage from which Obama delivered his address. Both the cross and the symbolic representation of Jesus’ name were not hidden by the background drapes that the White House wanted for the event, and so the Administration asked the school to cover them.
A spokesman for the White House said that there was no intent behind the request to cover the symbols other than to provide a standard presidential background. “Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events. Any suggestions to the contrary are simply false,” said a White House spokesperson.
This week, a court case in California decided that it is unconstitutional to describe creationism as “superstitious nonsense” in schools. A devout Christian pupil sued his history teacher when the teacher made his remark – among others disparaging religion.
The judge in the case ruled that the teacher, when he made his remark, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which courts interpret as banning government employees from promoting, or displaying hostility towards, religion.
The ruling could have enormous implications for the encroachment of religion — and particularly creationist ideas — into American schools. It is the first case of its kind that has shown that the establishment clause is there to protect religion from the state as much as it is to protect the state from religion.
Read the extraordinary details of the case
Over in the state of Maine, the legislature has approved a bill legalising gay marriage. In his speech justifying the move, the Governor, John Baldacci, asserted that equality meant just that and nothing less – and gay people were included. He said: “This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State.”
One person who strictly adhered to the constitutional idea of secularism as church-state separation was Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who is retiring from the bench. Although he argued that no taxpayer money should be spent in direct support of religion, he also argued that religion should be protected under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.
In other words, he was known for robustly arguing for church-state separation, but also strong support for individual religious freedom.
“He argued that religious practices should receive more protection from government than did his colleague [Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia,” said Melissa Rogers, a church-state expert at Wake Forest University who sits on a council that advises President Obama on faith issues. In a 1993 case in which he helped strike down a Florida law aimed at curbing the practice of the Santeria religion (specifically, adherents’ practice of animal slaughter as part of worship), Souter wrote that the First Amendment sought to protect believers from having to choose “between God and government.”
In a variety of other cases, Souter opposed state aid to religious clubs at public schools and said that state endorsements of religion (such as certain government displays of the Ten Commandments) violated the Establishment Clause. He wrote an elaborate historical analysis in a 1992 case in which the court — along with Souter — said a Rhode Island public school principal violated the law by inviting a rabbi to give a prayer at a graduation and thus endorsing non-sectarian prayers.
President Obama now has the tough job of appointing a replacement, and like all politicians there is a temptation for him to place someone on the Supreme Court who shares his own worldview.
See also:
