2008 Woodie Awards
Separation of Church and State
Erika Hyde
Issue date: 3/27/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Separation of church and state. This is a familiar rallying cry, but what does it entail from a scholarly standpoint? Does the constitutional ban on a government-established church also prohibit laws based on religious reasoning in the United States? Michael Perry, the Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory University, spoke on these questions on campus March 19, as part of the "Democracy and Moral Conviction" public lecture series organized by associate professor of philosophy Robert Talisse. The series is part of a graduate-level seminar exploring religious conviction and politics, and will host two more speakers, on April 9 and 16.
Perry reached a controversial conclusion regarding the merits of government mandates supported by religion. His lecture was titled "Is religion a constitutionally legitimate basis of lawmaking in the United States?" and focused primarily on whether laws with religious premises can be implemented without violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The clause prohibits the government from establishing a state supported church, banning free exercise of religion, or creating any law that would favor one religion over another.
Perry argued that laws grounded in a plausible religious rationale are acceptable as long as they do not support a particular church or a "range of theologically kindred churches." Based on this reasoning, he went on to say that several instances of religious influence on American political and cultural life have been allowed in accordance with the Constitution, including the addition of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; the printing of "In God we trust" on our currency; and the utterance of "God save the United States and this honorable court" at the beginning of judicial proceedings.
Anyone who does not subscribe to a monotheistic faith, however, is sure to take issue with this preferential treatment. The government's use of a singular "God" implies an adherence to the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. How could it be constitutionally legitimate for the government to mandate use of the term "God" in such a way that would coerce nonbelievers to comply with an ecumenical understanding of a higher being?
Perry reached a controversial conclusion regarding the merits of government mandates supported by religion. His lecture was titled "Is religion a constitutionally legitimate basis of lawmaking in the United States?" and focused primarily on whether laws with religious premises can be implemented without violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The clause prohibits the government from establishing a state supported church, banning free exercise of religion, or creating any law that would favor one religion over another.
Perry argued that laws grounded in a plausible religious rationale are acceptable as long as they do not support a particular church or a "range of theologically kindred churches." Based on this reasoning, he went on to say that several instances of religious influence on American political and cultural life have been allowed in accordance with the Constitution, including the addition of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; the printing of "In God we trust" on our currency; and the utterance of "God save the United States and this honorable court" at the beginning of judicial proceedings.
Anyone who does not subscribe to a monotheistic faith, however, is sure to take issue with this preferential treatment. The government's use of a singular "God" implies an adherence to the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. How could it be constitutionally legitimate for the government to mandate use of the term "God" in such a way that would coerce nonbelievers to comply with an ecumenical understanding of a higher being?
Be the first to comment on this story