BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Although I think the left has distorted the purpose and meaning of the founders on this topic (not found in the Constitution)...

I am asking...

If it is unlawful to voice religious views in the public square because of the SoCaS, would it also be unlawful to express anti-religious views in the public square?

A google search on the subject of anti religious protests brings up many examples.

The principle of separation of church and state is not called that by name in the constitution, but it is directly related to the establishment clause. There are multiple court rulings which have been pretty consistent in drawing the line to define what constitutes government establishment of religion, and where individual freedoms can go. The Equal Access Act, and subsequent court rulings, established the protections of religious speech of students in schools, and opened the door for Bible clubs and studies, and for the well-known "See You At the Pole" prayer gatherings at schools all across the country. The key piece of the rulings are that the activities are student-initiated and student-led, and not supported or funded by any tax dollars (schools can refuse if the presence of a group will cause an expense to be incurred). On occasion, courts apply the Lemon Test, related to a court case involving tax dollars used to pay salaries of teachers in Catholic schools. The court ruling came up with a three pronged test to determine whether an action constituted government establishment of religion.

Baptists are largely responsible for the interpretation of the establishment clause by use of the phrase "separation of church and state." One of the constitution's most prominent authors was Thomas Jefferson, who, in an explanation of the principle to the Danbury Baptist Association, used and defined the phrase. I don't see much going on that steps aside from Jefferson's clear explanation of exactly what the establishment clause meant, and it meant the separation of church and state.

How about teaching parents to withhold medical care from their children? This is an issue not only with Christian Science (which is famous for it) and Jehovah's Witnesses (who as far as I know only get involved if it's blood transfusions) but also these days with tons of home-schooling fundie parents who are convinced their oldest's autism is because he had a measles shot.

I don't think that a church teaching abstinence from immunization shots is any church/state problem...unless the state goes after the Hollywood types first.

I think the teaching of the antivaccinators is protected. I'm not familiar with case law on forcing vaccinations. I assume that communities may deny enrollment in schools.

Keith said: "What the SoCaS (case law but not formally in Constitution) prohibits is (1) government institutions enforcing a religious view on its citizens or favoring one religion over another, and (2) church institutions coercing political views on it's members."

Rvaughn asked about (2) to which Keith answered:

"Any religious institution (individual church, denomination, parachurch org...) should not try persuade (or pressure) any member or society as a whole on purely political matters (say candidates/parties to vote for, or PAC contributions recipients). When there is a legitimate religious content (e.g. abortion, going to war, helping the poor with govt money, ...) soft persuasion should be permitted in my view but accept what happens if you don’t get your way.

Admittedly, drawing lines about what constitutes a “legitimate religious content” can be murky but I believe there are times when we can be sure a religious organization can and should persuade their members; but many times it is not black or white but gray. Thus claims of violation of SoCaS should only be made when the case is clear (black or white not gray) and of course made non-violently and non-judgmentally."

I was reacting to the church/state issue involved with "any religious institution...should not try and persuade (or pressure)...soft persuasion should be permitted..."

I don't see that Keith exactly explained this. Is he attempting to explain church/state law or offering an opinion on what churches should say? If the former, that is, if the state should or is restricting the free exercise of religion on the basis of legitimate religious content or on the basis of persuasion of pressure of members or society based on the object of persuasion?

Perhaps the wording is a mess but should the state restrict free exercise on the basis Keith attempted to outline above?

Here's Jim: "Any entity, individual or institutional, should exercise the right to attempt to influence any other entity concerning any matter. The media do this all the time. It's called "freedom of speech.""

Keith calls this a "plausible viewpoint" which is an awfully tepid way to support the first amendment.

Keith continues with, "I still believe the institution of the church should stay out of purely political matters if it expects the state (and the media) to stay of purely religious matters in order to preserve religious liberty."

It is unclear if Keith misunderstands the first amendment or is sliding into offering his opinion on what is best for churches to do in regard to political speech. Churches clearly have a constitutional right to make political speech and is is not abridged by the gummit deciding what speech is political or religious or overly aggressive in secular politics or whatever. The only restriction, aside from speech adjudicated to be unprotected, is on tax exemptions which isn't being enforced anyway. Churches in their official institutional speech as well as individual speech are protected.

Which is why when he made a statement, not followed by making any sensible argument, that "soft persuasion" on "legitimate religious content" got the attention of myself and Rvaughn. Neither of these ("soft...legitimate") has anything to do with the constitution but a lot to do with some rather sordid historical precedents.

I'm in favor of freedom of speech (and I deprecate a lot of the activity to suppress it in fringe right folks recently) but I disagree with Jim's notion. I think there are lots of issues that neither I nor anyone else has a duty to attempt to influence others on. So while I believe they should have that right, I don't think Jim's statement William quoted amount to any sort of summation of the First Amendment, and I think tepid support is about the most Jim should get on it.