Those Sneaky Indians

[Bigt]

My local Indian tribe asked to - or were asked to, I don't know which - to come to my local high school to perform a Indian blessing ritual of the school. Although initially allowed, the ritual was cancelled due to protests that it violated the seperation of church and state principal.

I'm rather disappointed by this. My town and the tribe has had a sometimes contentious relationship over the years but it has improved greatly, helped in no small part by their very successful casino. I looked on this event more as chance for community building than as any kind of religious ceremony. Am I guilty of a double standard? Were it some Christian fundamentalist group instead of Indians, I would be among those protesting. No matter what the fundamentalist group claimed, I believe they would view the opportunity as a recruiting tool, even if they did no actual recruiting. I do not believe this of the Indians. I have watched several Indian rituals, including blessings, and not once did feel that they were promoting anything other than good will and stewardship of the land.

So - am I a hypocrite? Would you have allowed the ritual?

[Tumblehome]

It's a tough call sometimes, but if you're going to separate religion and state, it has to be all religions. You wouldn't want creationsists demanding equal time, would you?

Couldn't the tribe put on a show of some kind simply as a celebration of community harmony instead of a religious blessing?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

It's a tough call sometimes, but if you're going to separate religion and state, it has to be all religions. You wouldn't want creationsists demanding equal time, would you?

Couldn't the tribe put on a show of some kind simply as a celebration of community harmony instead of a religious blessing?

And then they could sneak the blessing as part of the ceremony -- sorta like Mother (spit) Teresa did by making the sign-of-the-cross while soothing the foreheads of the dying with a damp cloth?

[Tumblehome]

That's assuming the tribe wanted it to be religious, which the OP doesn't say. One problem might be that religion permeates just about everything in animism. There might be some religious significance even in a hoop dance.

And BTW, kudos to the protesters and to the school for listening to them.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That's assuming the tribe wanted it to be religious, which the OP doesn't say. One problem might be that religion permeates just about everything in animism. There might be some religious significance even in a hoop dance.

And BTW, kudos to the protesters and to the school for listening to them.

The OP mentions they wanted to do an "Indian blessing ritual". Sounds religious to me. And if it wasn't, why was it banned?

[Meadmaker]

That's assuming the tribe wanted it to be religious, which the OP doesn't say. One problem might be that religion permeates just about everything in animism. There might be some religious significance even in a hoop dance.

And BTW, kudos to the protesters and to the school for listening to them.

I could be mistaken, but I'll bet those protestors were largely Christians who didn't want their kids exposed to non-Christian religions.

To the OP: "Hypocrite" is too strong of a word, but yes you are displaying a double standard. If you would restrict access to Christian fundamentalists, but allow Indians doing a religious ceremony, that's a double standard, almost by definition.

ETA: I forgot to answer the second part of the question. Yes, I would have allowed the ritual, but I'm pretty liberal. I would allow pretty much any group of weirdos to perform in the name of culture even, dare I say it, Christians.

[Tumblehome]

The OP mentions they wanted to do an "Indian blessing ritual". Sounds religious to me. And if it wasn't, why was it banned?


Obviously it was going to be a religious ceremony but the OP says they "asked to - or were asked to, I don't know which..." If it was the latter, maybe they were willing to put on a non-religious ceremony, but were asked to perform a blessing ritual, in which case "religion" wouldn't have automatically been their goal.

[Tumblehome]

I could be mistaken, but I'll bet those protestors were largely Christians who didn't want their kids exposed to non-Christian religions.


Could be, but it's quite an assumption. Are there that many Christians who see the animism of Native religion as a threat to their kids?

ETA: I forgot to answer the second part of the question. Yes, I would have allowed the ritual, but I'm pretty liberal. I would allow pretty much any group of weirdos to perform in the name of culture even, dare I say it, Christians.


What about Scientologists?

Cancelling the ritual kept religion out of a school-sponsored event, but it also kept two cultures from coming together in a symbolic gesture, which was probably the intent in the first place. That's why I'd like to see the option of a non-religious ceremony.

[joobz]

ETA: I forgot to answer the second part of the question. Yes, I would have allowed the ritual, but I'm pretty liberal. I would allow pretty much any group of weirdos to perform in the name of culture even, dare I say it, Christians.

Oh, not that wierd bunch. They practice ritualized canabalism.. ewwwww.:p I agree, it is a double standard. it's either all ok, or none of it is.

With that said, it's all a matter of how the religion part is being dealt with. If it was designed to be a blessing of the school, then it should be prevented. If it was meant to be a cultural exhibition, then it may be acceptable. It's difficult to seperate culture from religion, since religion is mostly a reflection of the culture.

I think there are ways of approaching this issue though.
For instance, I think it would be very interesting to have a demonstration of how marriage is handled amongst different cultures. Such a side-by-side comparision can't be considered the promotion of any one religion and if you include a secular ceremony, you avoid the promotion of religion all together.

[Bigt]

I could be mistaken, but I'll bet those protestors were largely Christians who didn't want their kids exposed to non-Christian religions.


At least one of them was. He's a pastor at some fundamentalist church. Earlier this year his group was allowed to put on an assembly after school hours which he admits was for the promotion of his religion. So maybe I'm calling the wrong group sneaky.

This incident has caused a small stir in my smaller (not that small! -population 16,000) town. The local moderate Republican leaning newspaper, which is normally very much for seperation of church and state, expressed disappointment. They recognized it as a culture building thing but a few - maybe only the pastor I mentioned - made a big deal of it. I doubt if the Indians intended to promote any sort of religious ideas. Heck, I would have like to have seen it.

[Lonewulf]

I don't see what the problem with "showing off" a religious ceremony is. You don't have to participate; the point is that you're there to witness it, NOT practice it. It's not religion, it's Humanity, it's History, it's Culture. Not quite the same thing.

Essentially, it's the difference between watching Mass on television to see how it's performed, to attending Mass and worshiping, or REQUIRING that other people worship, and as a result, express believe in the principles of that faith (such that JC exists).

Quite frankly, if part of Religion class, Humanities, or Culture, the class was taken to see different forms of Mass performed by different cultures, and compared to Hindu religion, Buddhist ceremonies, etc., I'd be all down with that, even if it was a Public School. It's not pursued for religious reason, but for secular education reasons.

However, if the instructor only has them attend Mass (or Indian religious rituals) to "convert" them, then I wouldn't be down with that. That IS breaching the line, and is no longer secular.

[Jimbo07]

it's either all ok, or none of it is.


When trying to understand stories provided here on JREF (typically about life in parts of the United States), I tend to think that one of the reasons I am able to hold a... ummm... softer position on atheism is that most jurisdictions in Canada have gone with, "It's all ok."

That is, by allowing every culture, religion, cockamaimy superstition, FSM worship, etc. it feels like the overall effect has been to dilute all of them (including Christianity).

...

The above post represents impressions by the author only. :p

[Meadmaker]

When trying to understand stories provided here on JREF (typically about life in parts of the United States), I tend to think that one of the reasons I am able to hold a... ummm... softer position on atheism is that most jurisdictions in Canada have gone with, "It's all ok."

That is, by allowing every culture, religion, cockamaimy superstition, FSM worship, etc. it feels like the overall effect has been to dilute all of them (including Christianity).

...

The above post represents impressions by the author only. :p

Not just the author. Many agree, including me. That's one reason I think we should allow Indians and Christians to do their thing. It puts them on legally equal footing.

I do agree with Lonewulf's post, and I don't think it contradicts what I said above, although to spell out in great detail why not might take a long time for both me and those who might read it. Suffice it to say that my general approach is to say that all religions should be treated equally, which means that Catholicism and Wicca should be allowed, nay forced, to share the stage.

[DOC]

My local Indian tribe asked to - or were asked to, I don't know which - to come to my local high school to perform a Indian blessing ritual of the school. Although initially allowed, the ritual was cancelled due to protests that it violated the seperation of church and state principal.


If the vision of the US founders in the 1st amendment was followed it wouldn't have been canceled because the 1st amendment only says "Congress" can't make a law that creates an official national religion or prevents the free exercise of a religion. The term Separation of Church and State is nowhere in the Constitution.

The "legal term" Separation of Church and State was basically created in the 1947 Everson case. The decision was written by a former KKK member Justice Hugo Black. Hugo Black got the idea for all this by reading a brief written by Leo Pfeffer, a man who was a ACLU committee member. This post gives additional info on all this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2351125#post2351125

[Lonewulf]

The "legal term" Separation of Church and State was basically created in the 1947 Everson case. The decision was written by a former KKK member Justice Hugo Black. Hugo Black got the idea for all this by reading a brief written by Leo Pfeffer, a man who was a ACLU committee member. This post gives additional info on all this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2351125#post2351125

Interesting...

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to popular and political discussion of the concept, including criticism that it overstates the limits created under the Constitution. However, it originated much earlier, and was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in Massachusetts to found what became Rhode Island on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seperation_of_church_and_state

From the Library of Congress:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

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.

But I'm sure that pointing at the ACLU and ex-KKK members does perfectly to demonstrate what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers...

[DOC]

Interesting...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seperation_of_church_and_state

From the Library of Congress:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html



But I'm sure that pointing at the ACLU and ex-KKK members does perfectly to demonstrate what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers...


Bottom line is that the term "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. The Constitution only says (in the 1st amendment) Congress can't make an official national religion; or prevent the free exercise of a religion. It was very simple until other people started to tinker with it, and greatly change its meaning.

[kmortis]

Bottom line is that the term "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. The Constitution only says (in the 1st amendment) Congress can't make an official national religion; or prevent the free exercise of a religion. It was very simple until other people started to tinker with it.

If you marry the 1st with the 9th, you get an almost unbreakable argument for the separation concept. I'll leave it to the reader to follow that.


So, DOC, come by to tell us all how much better the Indians are since the good, Christian white men popped over for a visit?

[Boo]

If the christian group held an after school program, why not simply have the tribal ceremony for after school as well?



Boo

[Lonewulf]

Bottom line is that the term "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. The Constitution only says (in the 1st amendment) Congress can't make an official national religion; or prevent the free exercise of a religion. It was very simple until other people started to tinker with it, and greatly change its meaning.

Let me get this straight: You talk about Jefferson and his alleged "religious beliefs" ad nauseum (which you so thoroughly were debunked, albeit you never admit it), but you're so willing to ignore the same Thomas Jefferson, one of the foremost Founding Fathers of the United States of America, when he talks about the ideal of separating Church and State?

Which is it? Is Thomas Jefferson an authority worth appealing to, or isn't he?

[DOC]

If you marry the 1st with the 9th, you get an almost unbreakable argument for the separation concept. I'll leave it to the reader to follow that.

I disagree, and like kmortis, I'll leave it up to the reader to follow that.

[joobz]

I disagree, and like kmortis, I'll leave it up to the reader to follow that.
Of course you disagree, You reply on liars like sekulow and Kennedy to support your case. Your arguments typically hold no rational, factual, orethical foundations.


By the way, I fully agree with Meadmaker and Jimbo07 on the subject of what would or should be considered allowable. But such a position requires an initial setting where equality is nearly a foregone conclusion. I can say that many places in America (if not all) aren't there yet.
I remember growing up and not fitting in many times because my family was the wrong type of christian.

[DOC]

Let me get this straight: You talk about Jefferson and his alleged "religious beliefs" ad nauseum (which you so thoroughly were debunked, albeit you never admit it), but you're so willing to ignore the same Thomas Jefferson, one of the foremost Founding Fathers of the United States of America, when he talks about the ideal of separating Church and State?

Which is it? Is Thomas Jefferson an authority worth appealing to, or isn't he?


If the founders were serious about keeping religion out of the government they (including Jefferson) wouldn't have been going to hear camp style religious preachers in the House of Representative and they wouldn't have allowed the Gospel to be preached in the Supreme Court Chambers.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

[Lonewulf]

If the founders were serious about keeping religion out of the government they (including Jefferson) wouldn't have been going to hear camp style religious preachers in the House of Representative and they wouldn't have allowed the Gospel to be preached in the Supreme Court Chambers.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
Ooooohhhh, I get it.

So, this is the REAL version of Jefferson's letter:

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.

JUST KIDDING! Hahahaha, boy did I get you guys! I wish I could see the looks on your faces as you read this.

[Ivor the Engineer]

When I was at primary school we had a trip to see how native American Indians lived*. This experience, or the man who let me stroke his snake in assembly - I'm not sure which now - completely shattered my once strong Christian faith.

The pastor is right to be concerned.

*It being a wet winters day in the West Midlands, this required significant imagination.

[DOC]

When I was at primary school we had a trip to see how native American Indians lived*. This experience, or the man who let me stroke his snake in assembly - I'm not sure which now - completely shattered my once strong Christian faith.

Why?

[joobz]

If the founders were serious about keeping religion out of the government they (including Jefferson) wouldn't have been going to hear camp style religious preachers in the House of Representative and they wouldn't have allowed the Gospel to be preached in the Supreme Court Chambers.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
If the founders were SERIOUS about wanting religion IN government, they would have drafted:

the first amendment, strengthend by the 9th and 14th amendments
Constitution Article VI section 3,
Treaty of Tripoli, article 11,

[jimbob]

When trying to understand stories provided here on JREF (typically about life in parts of the United States), I tend to think that one of the reasons I am able to hold a... ummm... softer position on atheism is that most jurisdictions in Canada have gone with, "It's all ok."

That is, by allowing every culture, religion, cockamaimy superstition, FSM worship, etc. it feels like the overall effect has been to dilute all of them (including Christianity).

...

The above post represents impressions by the author only. :p

Indeed.

Of course in the UK, we have an innoculation against religion in the form of school assemblies.

Looking at people I knew to be unbelievers pretending to believe for ten minutes every day didn't convince me.

With the CoE "Trendy Vicar" and you have an exemplar negative role-model.

Then you have "thought for the day" on the radio. One of my school teachers parodied it thus:

I was walking along and I saw a beutiful butterfly, and I thought to myself, you know; life is a bit like a butterfly... Accurate, and repeated as a two minute slot every weekday (usually at 07:48). With different "people of faith" all trying to be as inclusive as possible.

The utter vacuosity, and the pigenholing probably helps create a secular atmosphere.

I sometimes forget and put CoE as my religion on forms*; as my Dad said to me recently, "Well, the music and language [from the Book of Common Prayer, and King James Bible] is fun, but nobody really believes in that"

*In my experience, most people who might describe themselves thus are totally secular, and religion is too unimportant for them to bother with labels like athiest or agnostic.

"Oh I'm not religious, I'm CoE"

[kmortis]

When I was at primary school we had a trip to see how native American Indians lived*. This experience, or the man who let me stroke his snake in assembly - I'm not sure which now - completely shattered my once strong Christian faith.

The pastor is right to be concerned.

*It being a wet winters day in the West Midlands, this required significant imagination.

you grew up Catholic???

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I blame Tanstaafl (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94023)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Indeed.

Of course in the UK, we have an innoculation against religion in the form of school assemblies.

Looking at people I knew to be unbelievers pretending to believe for ten minutes every day didn't convince me.

With the CoE "Trendy Vicar" and you have an exemplar negative role-model.

Then you have "thought for the day" on the radio. One of my school teachers parodied it thus:

Accurate, and repeated as a two minute slot every weekday (usually at 07:48). With different "people of faith" all trying to be as inclusive as possible.

The utter vacuosity, and the pigenholing probably helps create a secular atmosphere.

I sometimes forget and put CoE as my religion on forms*; as my Dad said to me recently, "Well, the music and language [from the Book of Common Prayer, and King James Bible] is fun, but nobody really believes in that"

*In my experience, most people who might describe themselves thus are totally secular, and religion is too unimportant for them to bother with labels like athiest or agnostic.

"Oh I'm not religious, I'm CoE"

One of my mother's cousins told her that he had decided to become a CofE minister. This would have been in the early 1930s in the West Midlands. She said something along the lines of "surely you don't believe that stuff," and he replied that he did not but it seemed like an easy job. He went on to fullfil his wish and was later famous for having written some sort of Christian opera that was performed in his church.

Most of the time I just don't believe anyone in the CofE is serious about the whole Christian thing.

Contrariwise, one of my high school classmates became an Anglican minister here in Canada and, as best I can tell, he is just as serious about his religion as when we used to verbally spar about it in school. Must be a colonial thing. :D

[c4ts]

My local Indian tribe asked to - or were asked to, I don't know which - to come to my local high school to perform a Indian blessing ritual of the school.

Would the students have been required to participate in the blessing ritual?

[phildonnia]

Bottom line is that the term "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. The Constitution only says (in the 1st amendment) Congress can't make an official national religion; or prevent the free exercise of a religion. It was very simple until other people started to tinker with it, and greatly change its meaning.

You've tinkered with it right here, not only changing its meaning, but its text. The phrase "official national religion" is found nowhere in the constitution. It does say, however, that no law can "respect an establishment of religion".

[Bigt]

Would the students have been required to participate in the blessing ritual?

No. They would merely observe.

[supercorgi]

I think they were right in prohibiting it but the rule has to be applied across the board and not just to non-Christian ceremonies.

That being said, I think it would be fascinating if members of the tribe came in and talked about the ceremony and it's meaning, showed the implements used in the ceremony, described the ceremony, and demonstrated parts of the ceremony.

[supercorgi]

I remember growing up and not fitting in many times because my family was the wrong type of christian.

Yes it does feel like you're excluded because you don't fit in with everyone else. I grew up in a town that was heavily Catholic. My Spanish class went on a field trip to NYC. As part of the field trip, we visited St. Patrick's Cathedral. When we got in the Cathedral, the entire class, with the exception of myself and another girl, run up and start lighting candles. So I turn to Julie Kleinberg and say "What in the world are they doing?" Obviously, the two of us just didn't fit in.

[joobz]

Yes it does feel like you're excluded because you don't fit in with everyone else. I grew up in a town that was heavily Catholic. My Spanish class went on a field trip to NYC. As part of the field trip, we visited St. Patrick's Cathedral. When we got in the Cathedral, the entire class, with the exception of myself and another girl, run up and start lighting candles. So I turn to Julie Kleinberg and say "What in the world are they doing?" Obviously, the two of us just didn't fit in.
Well, the sucky part was I didn't even fit in at church*:
I didn't speak greek and
I was only half greek.

*Kids and adults were never mean about it, but neither were they inviting. Excluding someone doesn't need to be an active process.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

Bottom line is that the term "Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. The Constitution only says (in the 1st amendment) Congress can't make an official national religion; or prevent the free exercise of a religion. It was very simple until other people {Hugo (KKK) Black, Leo (ACLU) Pfeffer} started to tinker with it, and greatly change its meaning.



You've tinkered with it right here, not only changing its meaning, but its text. The phrase "official national religion" is found nowhere in the constitution. It does say, however, that no law can "respect an establishment of religion".



You have misinterpreted the use of the word respecting in the 1st amendment. But I really can't fault you, because most schools don't teach it.

The clause says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The term "respecting" in the clause above does not mean respect as in to respect your elders. Respecting simply means "with respect to" or "regarding".

The term establishment in the above clause refers to a "national or state religion" like the one that was in England at the time called "The Church of England".

From the article "An introduction to the Establishment Clause"

"At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

[Meadmaker]

"At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

Ah, the good old days.

Your interpretation is correct, from a historical perspective, but surely you realize that, for a lot of different reasons, this perspective isn't the one used by the courts today, and is legally meaningless.

It might be true that decades of Supreme Court opinions have been wrong, but they are the law of the land despite that.

[phildonnia]

Originally Posted by DOC
You have misinterpreted the use of the word respecting in the 1st amendment. But I really can't fault you, because most schools don't teach it.
...
The term "respecting" in the clause above does not mean respect as in to respect your elders. Respecting simply means "with respect to" or "regarding".


Well, my observation was concerning your strange approach to the argument: you were pointing out that "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and then immediately went on to say that what it really means is something about official national religion, another phrase that appears nowhere in the constitution. Then you claim that the first meaning represents "tinkering". I found this ironic an self-contradictory.

But I take your point that the language is misleading by a modern understanding of the terms. "an establishment" is also troublesome; by your interpretation it would mean "which establishes" rather than "an established thing".

However, this seems at odds with the final "thereof"; why would we need to prevent congress from prohibiting the free exercise of a religion it never was allowed to establish?