I am going to be a little adventurous here and hit a topic that falls under the "opinion" category found in the description at the top of the RGNC blog site, and by that, I mean discussing something that ain't musical.
Brian raised a question regarding the "separation of church and state", and requested an opinion as to whether we, as a nation, have strayed from the original intent of this widely debated apsect of civil affairs.
I will offer an opinion, but I emphasize that it is just my opinion (no matter how correct it may be) and that anyone else may feel free to submit theirs as well.
So, here goes. As far as I know, the phrase "separation of church and state" is a phrase which is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. However, even thought the exact wording of that phrase is not there, is the concept perhaps there, although not in so many words? A good resource to try to determine what the founding fathers may have been thinking regarding such a topic at that time, and regarding other topics as well, are the Federalist Papers. I won't go into what they say, since I would hope everyone would go find them (online I'm sure) and read them for themselves. But, it is obvious (to me) that these guys were not afraid to ask for help from God in their efforts to draft the consitution, establish the country, etc. Still, does that mean they endorsed the official inclusion of God in the day to day political and civil activities, and that we are free to do likewise? That is where the debate begins.
MY TAKE on the situation can be summed up as follows: I view the "separation of church and state" not so much as the exclusion of religious belief from political or civic life, as much as a tool to protect the free practice and expression of religious belief from the controlling interest of the local, state or federal government. I do not see the obligation placed upon the courts and governing bodies of this nation to be that of protecting us from religion, but rather protecting us from any effort to prohibit or force the practice of a religion. This is a real tight-rope act that rarely succeeds.
In the past few days there has been a Supreme Court ruling regarding this whole area of debate. In a 7-2 decision, the S.C. ruled that states are under no obligation to provide scholarships for college students who are studying religion. The case involved a student who was awarded a needs ($) based scholarship, only to have it taken away when it was found out that he was a religious studies major. I suppose that some in opposition to his scholarship considered it to be an official endorsement and promotion of his religious beliefs, since he was perhaps studying to become a minister, or something along those lines. Then again, there is always the very feasible and not too well disguised fact that some who disagreed with his scholarship may have also been hostile to his religious beliefs (i.e. Christianity), and did not want him to receive any benefit that might help him study something they are hostile to. HOWEVER, it does not seem to me that the other side of the coin has not been adequately exposed yet. By denying this student a needs based scholarship in an effort to avoid promoting his religious beliefs, there has actually been a de facto suppression of the practice and expression of his religious beliefs in the sense that he has been told that his beliefs are not as important as the other "officially recognized and sanctioned" areas of study determined by those who took away his scholarship. I ask at this point, is there any difference between promoting religious study via scholarship supported by tax dollars, or prohibiting religious study via scholarship supported by tax dollars? There are some crucial differences, and here are just 2 of them:
1. By giving this student (who pays taxes, or his family does) a scholarship, his religion is not being promoted or endorsed. If the student goes on to become a minister in denomination whatever, the scholarship he received in college will have no impact upon forcing disagreeing tax-payer citizens to attend his church. It will have no impact upon those who are still completely free to disagree with him.
2. However, by not allowing this student to receive a scholarship (that he or his family contribute to via taxation), a clear statement has been made by the powers that be in a given state (or U.S. Supreme Court) who have determined that they WILL NOT ALLOW (sounds like suppression) religious studies to be supported because THEY have decided that that particular form of the practice and expression of religion is in opposition to their opinion of what the "separation of church and state" means.
Now, does this mean that I think tax based scholarships should be used to encourage and support religious studies majors? NOPE! Because I don't think that tax based scholarships should be used to support religious studies, sociology, history, mathematics, football, law, or any other kind of students because I disagree with the whole premise of tax-based scholarships to start with. Let the people keep more of their own money and make their own decisions; but that leads to a whole different, though connected, topic.
So, I suggest that this whole thing is a mess that will very likely never be solved to the satisfaction of everyone involved. Its like a war which won't be over til' somebody wins, which also means that somebody has to lose. I can see both sides of the issue. For instance, I don't want to pay for someone to study a religion I am not a part of, or that is hostile to my own. At the same time, I can see that everybody has a valid claim to any tax based funding that they help support regardless of their religious opinion. In short, I see no way out of this one because the premise that allows freedom of religious practice and expression is also the same one that prohibits the government from promoting an official state religion.
Who's next at the political roundtable?
be good.
