It's not been a good week for clear thinking on the role of religion in public life. In the US, where the First Amendment of the constitution demands a complete separation of church and state, a Judge has ruled that churches must stop meeting in school buildings because "a worship service is an act of organised religion that consecrates the place in which it is performed, making it a church."
This is not just theologically illiterate (no mainstream Christian denomination believes this) but highly superstitious about the fabric of buildings and their mutability.
Here in the UK, the National Secular Society's (NSS) campaign to end a council in Devon conducting prayers before their meetings has been successful. A majority in the council had voted to continue the practice, and believes that they have a democratic right to continue. Because of this ruling, no council in England or Wales will be able to hold prayers as part of its formal business.
Both these cases reveal more than a little confusion. In the US, the context is an overwrought, ongoing debate about prayer in schools and a caution verging on paranoia about mixing religion and the state (though not, of course, religion and politics). The idea, mooted in an op-ed in the New York Times, that the church handing out leaflets about their services, or even praying for the school they are meeting in is somehow a violation of this is patently absurd.
Here in the UK we see a Judge making a downright odd ruling on a case that shouldn't have come to court. Rather than basing his ruling on the NSS's claims that prayers are discriminatory or raise equality or human rights concerns, he ruled in favour of banning the practice because he found that prayers do not fall within the ambit of Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. This provides local authorities with a generic power "to do any thing (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions."
The basis on which he comes to this conclusion is not clear. What was propelling him to interpret these non-specific clauses in such a way? Having rejected claims of discrimination, he then sneaks them back in:
"I do not think the 1972 Act [...] should be interpreted as permitting the religious views of one group of councillors, however sincere or large in number, to exclude, or even to a modest extent, to impose burdens on or even to mark out those who do not share their views and do not wish to participate in their expression of them. They are all equally elected councillors".
I have some sympathy with the argument that those who do not believe should be not be forced to take part in a ritual that excludes them. However, court cases of this kind simply distort these discussions. These kind of issues can only be resolved sensibly, graciously, and productively amongst the people involved. In the case of Bideford Council, the councillor who raised the original objection has now left, but the campaign has rolled on.
Our current discourse, which frames the debate as about competing 'rights', us and them, religious people vs. secular people, creates an impoverished and divided public space. We have forgotten how to handle our differences like grown-ups. Healthy, generous secularism, what Rowan Williams calls "procedural secularism", means holding open a space where all people and all voices are allowed space to flourish. It does not mean a programmatic and illiberal banishing of some points of view which are seen by others to be invalid- whether those are religious, ideological or other.
If the majority of council members wanted to say prayers, those that didn't should be able to join after they'd finished. This in the end was part of the judges ruling- that prayers could be said as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend. Was this not something that could have been worked out without the money and resources spent on a protracted case? There was no need for an unhelpful legal precedent to be set.
The NSS's misguided campaign to rid our public life of any hint that religious people might be a part of it simply continues the impression that religious people and non-religious people are not able to function together, respecting each other's differences, without all out war.
Follow Elizabeth Hunter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheosElizabeth
Aaron Taylor: The Bible Is Not a Public Policy Manual
Jay Rubenstein: Santorum's Augustinian Theology
Bideford Council Meeting Prayers Banned Following Test Case
Religion should not be allowed to interfere in the public sphere, and all should be treated equally according to the laws of the land. No special rights. For too long religion has had special rights in Europe, look at what that got us. No wonder the Founders of the USA, especially Madison who drafted it, did not write religion into a special place in their founding Constitution, they knew precisely all to well what an incendiary mix religion and politics was.
PRONUNCIATION:
(pruh-MEE-thee-uhn)
MEANING:
adjective: Boldly creative; defiant; audacious.
noun: A person who is boldly creative or defiantly original.
TYMOLOGY:
After Prometheus, a demigod in Greek mythology. He made man from clay, stole fire from Zeus by trickery, and gave it to humans. For his crime he was chained to a rock and an eagle devoured his liver to have it grow again to be eaten again the next day.
USAGE:"A Promethean impulse lives on in the financial markets, where quantitative investors hubristically strive to invent and speculate beyond their capacity to understand."
Ben Wright; Fear, Frankenstein and the Rise of the Machines; Financial News (London, UK); Oct 10, 2011. A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA
If Christians want to have prayers before council meetings, fine, then it would only be fair for atheist council members to have a moment to rant about how ridiculously silly theistic superstitions are and how anyone who believes in them is a darn fool. And the Christians participate in the rant by either excluding themselves from the council as some outsider while the atheist has his moment or by siting quietly through the rant and putting up with it. After all, fair is fair.
If the Christians must have their religion in the public sphere, then I think it is only fair they get a dose of their own medicine.
I don't mind if Christians practice their superstitions. I only ask they do it in a way that doesn't involve me and that doesn't exclude me from my own government.
You don't get it, you just can not have prayer in the public sphere. It frequently winds up a prayer from a specific religion, often a specific Christian denomination. It excludes atheists and some other non-Christians. Atheists shouldn't have to leave the room while a council or classroom prays any more than atheists should be forced to participate in the prayer. The mere act of holding a prayer commands the participation of all present. It is simply, you want to pray, do it at home or in church. Keep it out of the public sphere. Christians aren't the only members of the public sphere.
(Public sphere = government, schools, and military. Not malls and private property.)
Um, us atheists, and non-Christians in general, have tried the polite, diplomatic approach for a long time. We've tried working things about amongst ourselves, privately, not in court. We've tried living with religion inside the public sphere. That hasn't worked. We know all too well what happens, Christianity tries to dominate the public sphere with their religion. Christians rather inconsiderately acts as if non-Christians and atheists in particular don't exist and keep on trying to run society their way. Christianity is enjoying privilege over everyone else and they want to keep it that way.
Well, the time for diplomacy and politely working it amongst ourselves is over. Christians are not the sole members of Western society and they aren't going to be privileged over everyone else any more. You don't like losing your privilege, losing the privilege of prayer in government in particular? Tough. Oh, and that you're still asking for privilege makes it Christian vs atheist.
These are further reasons why radicalized forms of secularism are necessary. Against the lack of conceptual clarity of articles like this one, we must still push forth the agenda of skepticism and the importance of evidence against bare claims of certainty. Here is a more elaborate explanation of the relation:
http://theradicalsecularist.com/?p=206
A truly secular world would be one in which religion does not have an affect over laws governing the people as a whole. But at the same time taking religion from the public eye is not going to work either. People have a choice to turn away when faced with something they don't agree with and they should do so when faced with a church sign, religious article or speech or even an advertisement for Christian Mingle. Be adults, realize that we all have our differences and press. Don't push your views on others. And last but most definitely not least, treat others as you want to be treated.
"In the US, where the First Amendment of the constitution demands a complete separation of church and state,"
- No, the constitution certainly does not demand a "complete" separation, and we certainly don't have one.
"...a Judge has ruled..."
- No, a three-judge court has ruled...
"...that churches must stop meeting in school buildings..."
- No, not even close. The court ruled that a certain particular school board was legally entitled to deny the application of a certain church, not merely to meet, but to conduct "religious worship services" at a certain public school.
"...because 'a worship service is an act of organised religion that consecrates the place in which it is performed, making it a church.'
- Well I must admit that I myself regret Judge Leval's choice of the word "consecrate," in the one single sentence, out of his 33-page opinion, that Hunter chose to quote. And of course it's unfortunate that Judge Leval only ever got an advanced degree in Law, instead of a degree in the really useful subject of Theology - the obvious choice for anyone who wants above all to learn to Think Clearly, like our fact-free Ms. Hunter.
http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/26/new-york-city-and-state-consider-seeking-to-reverse-the-second-circuits-decision-in-the-bronx-household-case
And here is the actual ruling by the court:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/07-5291/07-5291_complete_opn-2011-06-02.html
I earnestly recommend reading the ruling (pages 3 - 36). You will be able to see for yourself just how "illiterate" Judge Leval may be, and just how "absurd" the court's ruling was.
(Spoiler: Judge Leval is not "illiterate" at all, and there was nothing "absurd" about the ruling, at all.)
Paranoia? Really?
How many wars, massacres, atrocities, and failures of justice over the past two thousand years, do we owe first and foremost to "mixing religion and the state?"
It is only by way of "mixing religion and the state" that oppressive religions such as Muhammad's Islam have gained the ability to subject nations to their tender mercies, thwarting for centuries any progress of human hope and potential, just as ruthlessly as they stifle free speech and idea of human equality.
The largest and longest slave trade that ever occurred in history, was brought to us by nations that "mixed religion and the state."
The longest-running series of atrocious inquisitions were brought to us by nations that "mixed religion and the state."
The worst examples of mistreatment of women, and children, have been brought to us by nations that mixed religion and the state.
If anyone wants to find "the worst of the worst," of almost anything at all, just go to a nation that mixes religion and the state, and you'll probably find it.
---------------------------
"The fact that New York City’s school facilities are more available on Sundays than any other day of the week means that there is a de facto bias in favor of Christian groups who want to use the schools for worship services.”
Judge Leval, in his ruling, distinguished the Bronx Household of Faith from the Bible study group involved in the Supreme Court decision. The Bronx church and others using the city’s schools, he wrote, “tend to dominate the schools on the day they use them.”
“They use the largest rooms and are typically the only outside group using a school on Sunday,” he wrote.
--------------------------
This is not just a minor detail of the Judge's ruling. This shows the Judge's awareness and appreciation of one of the major reasons for our separation of church and state: the danger that one religion might become dominant over others, and come to make itself the "state religion."
"A local church is a Christian religious organization that meets in a particular location."
- wikipedia
In what way does the definition of "local church" as a "religious organization that meets in a particular location" fail to support the U.S. Judge's ruling, or show him to be "illiterate?"
And by the way, Ms. Hunter, if you find his ruling so objectionable, why didn't you tell us the judge's name, or the name of the case, so we could read his ruling for ourselves? Don't you think that one aspect of "literacy" is observing the fairness and courtesy of providing others with some slight means of checking out and confirming our statements?
If you had ever actually put in practice the high regard for literacy that you seem to value, you might have read and learned enough about rulings regarding religion in schools in the U.S. to understand that there is nothing "absurd" about not allowing religious worship services in public schools. There are many rulings on this subject, going back fifty years. I have read many of them. They include true masterpieces of judicial reasoning, eloquence and fairness, and I count them among my most treasured and wonderful possessions as a citizen of the U.S.
When you accuse a judge of "illiteracy," for properly observing our well-established law, you leave no doubt as to where the true shortage of literacy lies.