The Supreme Court has interpreted the establishment clause as it was intended
to be interpreted..as requiring a wall of separation between church and state.
If you look at the history of supreme court decisions in this area its a rather porous wall. If you look at the phrase itself there is even less indication of a requirement for an impervious wall totally separating the two. Generally I would support a strong degree of separation for constitutional reasons and also to support religious freedom, but I think you overstate the degree of separation that is required by the constitution. I don't think the court decisions are quite so absolute about this issue as you apparently think, and also I would consider the questions "does the constitution allow for this", and "will the supreme court accept this as constitutional" to be different questions. I don't think the constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is, but if you do hold that belief, then what about the possibility of the supreme court overturning the 9th district appeals court on this issue? If the constitution is whatever the supreme court says it is, then the SC's decisions would make the act constitutional.
Looking at the early history of our government it seems unlikely that the writers of the constitution meant for there to be a total wall be religion and religious ideas, and the state. They had chaplains, and they allowed other forms of entanglement between government and religion. They did keep religion out of matters of real substance for the most part but didn't seem to have a problem with allowing religion in to government organizations.
I think that is naive. If the Supreme Court would allow "under God" to be interpreted as secular, and neutral as regards religion, and not supportive of a belief in God, then on what basis would they strike other "neutral" promotions of religion?
They could use the old "ceremonial deism" argument, or they could come up with a different test. The "have a secular purpose, and it must be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and it must not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion." test is a creation of the supreme court, they can create something else. They might just decide that it creates no excessive entanglements and doesn't do much to advance religion and the extent that it supports any religion or religious idea is minimal enough so that it doesn't violate the constitution. I recognize that they could try similar arguments to allow greater entanglement but it gets harder and harder as a matter of logic and legal principles, and also there would be less and less political support for the idea. (The courts while less exposed to political pressures then then the other branches of government are effected by them.)
No. And the Roman Catholic Church WAS the State of Quebec during the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. It controlled every single school, and all health care, and all civic functions such as marriages.
I can see why you would be upset about that. But do you think Canadians in the first half of the twentieth century, didn't have a "healthy institution of democracy"? I think its a good thing that there isn't that level of entanglement in Canada anymore but there still is no formal constitutional provision against such an entanglement, but despite that Canadian democracy seems healthy enough to me. I would say the same thing about the European countries that lack such formal protections or who have protections that do not extend as far as demanding a total seperation between any aspect of religion and government.
Tim |
