WHY AMERICAN ATHEISTS IS PROTESTING AT THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another ... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion ... In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a ‘wall of separation between church and state.’”-- U.S. Supreme Court
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1947)
Why We Protest...
A Statement of Concern About The Separation of Church and State, and the Year 2000 Elections
The First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The Founders of the American Republic, despite their many flaws, had the wisdom to realize that state sponsored religion, as had been the case in Europe, violated liberty and individual conscience. In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson spoke of the need to erect a "wall of separation" between the churches and government. Prior to the Revolution, individual colonies often had an official church, supported by tax money; to exercise rights, own property or occupy an office of public trust, one often had to be a member of this "established" church.
Today, Jefferson's wall is under attack. Some denominations clamor for public aid to support their sectarian schools. Others demand special "religious liberty" legislation which would exempt churches, mosques, temples and other houses of worship from zoning laws, land use and environmental statutes, and other regulations which all private individuals and businesses must obey. Still others, including many political groups, wish to open the public treasury to religious sects by involving them in "partnerships" with local and state governments. There are also demands that government organize some form of prayer in public schools, display religious slogans in classrooms and government buildings, and actively involve sectarian groups in the business of statecraft.
Millions of Americans, though, have no religious belief. It is estimated that 10% of our population -- over 26,000,000 people -- describe themselves as Atheists, agnostics, freethinkers or a similar label. Tens of millions more are "unchurched," and see no need to attend religious service. Religion plays little or no part in our daily routine, yet most of us lead happy, productive and moral lives.
No American should be required to support, through taxation or any other instrument, a religious belief or movement. No church, religion-based school, or any other institution tied to any denomination should demand that the gates of the public treasury be open for their use. Indeed, religious belief -- or that lack of it -- should be a private affair, and one's decision to support (or not support) religious institutions should be a voluntary act, not a decree of the state.
Unfortunately, government policy has not always reflected this position. Religious groups are demanding public money in the form of vouchers, grants, special tax privileges and numerous "indirect" subsidies. Both of the major political parties increasingly ignore the First Amendment. Political candidates rush to court religious votes, offering "religion friendly" legislation and citing their belief in religious creeds. In political platforms and debate, the separation of religion and government is often treated as an inconvenience to be circumvented, a principle to be limited, apologized for or -- some cases -- removed from any judicial consideration. U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rhenquist, for instance, has referred to Jefferson's "wall of separation" as a metaphor with no authentic basis in American history or law.
Issues...
PUBLIC FUNDING FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS: VOUCHERS
Despite the history and wording of the First Amendment, sectarian groups continue to demand direct and indirect forms of government aid. The Roman Catholic Church leads the effort for school vouchers (proposed under the bogus notion of "charitable choice"). Protestant fundamentalist schools, "Christian academies," Muslim schools and others would all benefit. Even without voucher aid, though, our courts have followed the lead of elected officials and increasingly legitimized various forms of state aide to sectarian schools. Taxpayers now subsidize everything from bus transportation to textbooks, laboratory equipment and other resource; this permits religious schools to not only stay in business -- often attempting to provide the youngsters under their control with a "religious education" that inculcates doctrinal conformity, and undermines critical thinking skills.
"FAITH-BASED" PARTNERSHIPS
Another dangerous trend which threatens separation of church and state is the effort to involve sectarian groups in the administration of social welfare programs. Religious missions and service agencies have received public money for years, but beginning in the 1970s there was a dramatic increases in such subsidies. Theoretically, any public funding is to be used only for activities which are secular and do not include religious proselytizing or rituals. The practical reality, though, is that there is little or no public oversight and accounting of how these funds are expended. Often, the recipients or 'clients" are encouraged or coerced into participating in religion-based activities and rituals.
"Partnership" legislation has become a fad issue in recent political campaigns. States like New Jersey now have an official "Faith-partnership" office which encourages religious groups to apply for state funding, and instructs them on how to operate social services. The programs, though, have only perfunctory supervision, and abuses abound. In one case, for instance, public money rehabilitated an old movie theater which is now used for religious services. "Faith partnerships" use the tax money of all Americans to fund religion. Some religious groups, fearing increased government regulation, refuse to accept public money and operate solely on private donations.
We call for an end to all "faith-based partnership" programs. They are unconstitutional, threaten the separation of church and state, and are a form of public entitlement for religious groups. The partnerships which do exist lack proper accounting and oversight. (Churches often protest this as "infringement" on their autonomy.)
"SPECIAL RIGHTS" LEGISLATION
Religious groups are seeking exemptions from civil and criminal statutes by demanding a form of "Religious Protection Act." These measures would require governments to employ a cumbersome "compelling interest/least restrictive means" test when dealing with faith-based groups and practices. One such law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was passed by Congress in 1994 and struck down four years later by the U.S. Supreme Court in BOERNE v. FLORES. Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens declared that this legislation violated the First Amendment, and provided sectarian groups with a legal instrument which "no atheist" could hope to obtain.
RFRA legislation has been proposed in over a dozen states. Some have adopted versions of the act. The federal legislation was rechristened as the Religious Liberty Protection Act. It passed the U.S. House of Representatives, but has languished in the Senate. There, a version of RLPA has been introduced as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
These sorts of measures give "special rights" to religion-based movements. They set a high bar for government when dealing with churches, mosques and temples, while others -- private individuals, businesses and non-religious organizations -- are required to obey civil and criminal statutes. Critics have charged that RLPA and RLUIPA would allow religious groups to ignore zoning codes, land use regulations and environmental statutes.
Religious groups and practices should enjoy no special protections above and beyond those available to all Americans. We all live under a system of laws; and belief in a deity or religious creed should not exempt any group or individual from the "generally applicable," neutral statutes which apply to every American. Government should be exercise "strict neutrality" toward religion -- showing neither hostility nor favoritism.
DISPLAY OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS, ICONS AND PROMOTION OF RELIGIOUS RITUAL IN GOVERNMENT
There are more than 350,000 churches, chapels, mosques, temples, cathedrals and other "houses of worship" in the United States. This does not include private homes and rented auditoriums for "weekend congregations" where religious believers may gather and pray. Why, then, is there such insistence by religious groups that their slogans, symbols and teachings be promulgated in public schools, and displayed in classrooms, courthouses and other public venues?
Our schools and government buildings should be neutral and secular. Students should not be forced to pray or engage in religious rituals, whether by a teacher, administrator or a majority of fellow students. Ceremonies, athletic events and other school activities should not be occasions for proselytizing. Nor should government gatherings, whether a meeting of a local city council or our state and federal legislatures, turn a political podium into a sectarian pulpit for preaching. Legislators should restrain their impulse to tell Americans when and how to worship -- as, for instance, when the House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution advocating display of the Ten Commandments. Nor should taxpayers should not be asked to pay salaries for official chaplains.
Our National motto, "One Nation Under God," is a recent artifact. Prior to the 1950s,"E Pluribus Unum" was the slogan which united all Americans. We support the reinstatement of that motto, and the elimination of religious references on government seals, buildings and from our nation's currency. A "God oath" should not be a requirement for elected or appointed officials, those seeking to testify before or serve on a jury, or those seeking an office of public trust.
Our constitution guarantees freedom of religious exercise, and freedom from religious intrusion. No American should be required to join a church, subsidize or assist a religious program or group, or swear allegiance to a deity as a requirement for enjoying civil rights. We demand -- and exercise! -- our right to speak out on these issues.
Election 2000 is an unfortunate high-water mark in the effort to identify religion with political slogans, platforms and candidates. The presumptive standard bearers of the two major parties have gone out of their way to cite religious belief as a credential for public office. At no time in the history of the United States, though, has a majority of the American people consisted of regular church attendees. Most churches today suffer from "empty pew" syndrome; it is no wonder why so many sectarian groups are seeking public assistance in the form of vouchers and other government subsidies. It is time for the candidates, and the Republican and Democratic parties, to consider how they might represent the interests of tens of millions of aAtheists, agnostics, freethinkers, secularists and others who do not blindly embrace religious creeds. It is also time for these parties and candidates to "rediscover" the First Amendment to our Constitution, and treat the separation of church and state as an important part of our political foundation -- not a principle to be apologized for, circumvented, or ignored.
|
Contact Congress Action Home Contact Congress What you can do to help Tips on effective contact 
|
![[top]](/pix/arrow.gif){kind=icon}