Comments on: Ceremonial Religion & the First Amendment: When an Altar is Just an Altar

By: This Week in Separation

This Week in Separation — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:03:46 +0000

[...] can’t favor one religion over another, and the erection of blatantly religious monuments, unless ancient indeed, surely runs afoul of this principle. We’ll have to wait until May to see if the Court [...]

By: Mount Soledad’s Cross: Religious Monuments Revisited

Mount Soledad’s Cross: Religious Monuments Revisited — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:53:33 +0000

[...] if the monument’s modern cultural context dominates its religiosity. I’ve discussed both exceptions before, and despite my initial surprise at finding myself saying this, the Soledad cross fits both [...]

By: thoughtcounts A

thoughtcounts A — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:45:42 +0000

I consider myself a huge proponent of church-state separation, and I still agree with you on the two examples you give. I think historical stuff where religion is clearly not the point is just fine, and I’ve always thought the Supreme Court rulings on the Ten Commandments made more sense than most people seemed to think.

That said, I feel like “historical or cultural” reasons is a little broad. I’m really not religious at all, but I still participate in religious activities with my extended family. I can’t really imagine any religious activities that don’t have some cultural significance. “Historical” is also generally fine when taken the way you intend it, but could easily result in essentially grandfathering in any church-state violation that doesn’t get struck down very quickly.

I think what you have in mind is exactly the right idea. There’s kind of an “I know it when I see it” aspect to this. I don’t know how to refine the standard to really make a good explicit distinction. The endorsement test seems as reasonable to me as anything.

By: Ames

Ames — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:37:10 +0000

Uuhhh, apologies for all the typos that I JUST corrected. D’oh.

By: Ames

Ames — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:11:37 +0000

Woo! Thanks PC! I’ve added your praise – GREATLY appreciated – to our about page :-). I think the community here has a good moderating effect on me. As does law school, actually. Thanks!

By: Progressive Conservative

Progressive Conservative — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:14:25 +0000

Perhaps surprisingly, I would uphold both ceremonial uses of religious imagery, on the grounds that the threat of sending an exclusionary message is minimal when the dominant theme of a religious icon or expression is historical or cultural rather than evangelical. In these hypotheticals, both the Battle Hymn and the Altar of Victory have unique places in the consciosness of their respective populations owing to their antiquity, not their religiosity. While this position places at odds with many of my liberal compatriots, I’m in good company. In 2005, Justice Breyer cast the tiebreaking vote in two “Ten Commandments on the courthouse steps” cases, distinguishing a monument with great antiquity (therefore valid - see Van Orden) from a monument placed seemingly only to inflame religious and “make a point” (therefore invalid - see McCreary). Being in a pluarlist society not only requires us to avoid using the state to place one religion over the other; it also requires us to tolerate cultural expressions that might carry with them a twinge of religiosity. We cannot expunge religion wholesale from the public sphere, without depriving ourselves of valuable reminders of our heritage. I agree 100%. Understanding context is one way both sides can better understand the line between religion and state. That's three Ames. You the man. As promised...