From the Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson:
. . . Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty—That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals—That no man aught to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions—That the legetimate Power of civil Goverment extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir, our constitution of goverment is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our goverment, At the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, & such still are; that religion is consider’d as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expence of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistant with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondred at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of goverment & Religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
From Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association:
. . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Showing posts with label tyranny of the majority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tyranny of the majority. Show all posts
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Freedom of religion or tyranny of the majority?
Democracy ain't easy. The right of the majority to establish the policies it seems best can limit the rights of the minority. This is a major theme of Federalist 10, as well as the Bill of Rights.
This Atlantic article on the promotion of Christianity in Louisiana public schools is just one example - a topical one at that since we revisit these issues continually in Texas as well. Here's the heart of the dispute:
Presumably all this is done with the consent of the majority, but over the wishes of the minority - which of course has little influence in a majoritarian democracy. A public school is a governing institution and even though these operate on the local level, the 14th Amendment makes First Amendment restrictions created to limit the national governmental power applicable to them as well. This is meant to limit what majorioties can impose upon minorities, but it butts up against a tension that exists in the opening clause of the First Amendment.
While a government cannot establish an official church, neither can it restrict free exercise of religion. The line between the two can get muddled though - and this is where problems start. What's happening in the Louisiana schools is an expression of religious belief, but the fact that it is done in a governing institution - a single purpose government - with the authority of the board and administration makes it seem like the religious expression becomes the official "established" one in the institution.
Those who do not adhere to it are seemingly treated in a secondary manner. Which leads to the constitutional conflict.
This Atlantic article on the promotion of Christianity in Louisiana public schools is just one example - a topical one at that since we revisit these issues continually in Texas as well. Here's the heart of the dispute:
A federal lawsuit filed last week in Louisiana contains some of the most startling allegations you will ever see against public school officials accused of unlawfully turning their school into a bastion of Christian belief. In western Louisiana's Sabine Parish, one family alleges, teachers preach Creationism and mock the theory of evolution, routinely lead their students in Christian prayer, give extra credit for Christian responses to assignments, and actively question or deride the religious beliefs of non-Christian students and parents.
Presumably all this is done with the consent of the majority, but over the wishes of the minority - which of course has little influence in a majoritarian democracy. A public school is a governing institution and even though these operate on the local level, the 14th Amendment makes First Amendment restrictions created to limit the national governmental power applicable to them as well. This is meant to limit what majorioties can impose upon minorities, but it butts up against a tension that exists in the opening clause of the First Amendment.
While a government cannot establish an official church, neither can it restrict free exercise of religion. The line between the two can get muddled though - and this is where problems start. What's happening in the Louisiana schools is an expression of religious belief, but the fact that it is done in a governing institution - a single purpose government - with the authority of the board and administration makes it seem like the religious expression becomes the official "established" one in the institution.
Those who do not adhere to it are seemingly treated in a secondary manner. Which leads to the constitutional conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)