Lex, you are right. What I wrote obviously wasn’t clear enough. Put in the Hamiltonian sense, people can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others (ie. Don’t prey/pray on me). What I was trying to get at was that all members of a state are citizens before they belong to a certain religious group. The legal framework should deal on that overlying layer of citizenry, and should not delve into the religious, which in my view is personal choice.

“They are also free, like every other interest group, to seek and to obtain whatever public funding they can get their hands on.”

I shied away from the term “interest group” but what you said basically reflects my comment that “Under the law a religious group is just another organization of citizens.”

I think on these points we are of similar view. It is the following where we move into conflict:

“how a symbol is treated by the “legal framework” is a matter which should be democratically decided”

This is the interesting question to me. I vote for religious symbols to be ignored by the legal framework. Keep the “Citizenship” layer and the “Religious” layer separate at all costs. I want a liberal democracy based on tangible, natural science that protects personal freedoms (including the right to free exercise). I think France is trying to go one step further and rule out free exercise, even though they feature liberté in their country’s motto. That is the hypocrisy I tried to highlight in my last post.

Your thoughts are welcome.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/19/should-there-be-a-religious-test-for-office.html

Your view is wrong. I am absolutely free to follow my religion everywhere I go, in public, whether anyone likes it or not. I am absolutely free to vote based on it, organize political activities based on it, and do all other things all other citizens do based on their own motivations, whatever they are. If I am told that I am now under some kind of secular Sharia and I have to stay indoors when living out my life my faith and my identity, the answers is: Make me.

Religious people are free to do absolutely everything that all other citizens do, based on whatever motivation. They are also free, like every other interest group, to seek and to obtain whatever public funding they can get their hands on. The current, overbroad and incorrect interpretation of “establishment of religion” as discriminating against religious groups where everyone else has their snout in the trough is baseless and hopefully will eventually be overcome.

“Under the law a religious group is just another organization of citizens.”

Yes and no.

In fact, unlike most other forms of belief, free exercise is specifically protected by the Constitution, and it was understood to have a public dimension.

“Their symbols are irrelevant to the citizenry at large, and thus should be ignored in terms of the legal framework.”

The “legal framework” should address reality. Saying Muslim girls cannot wear headscarves is choosing to provoke a conflict. I am not sure whether that is right or wrong under the circumstances. It is basically a political decision, a cost/benefit calculus. French people should decide how hard they want to push for their notion of Laïcité, and enact laws accordingly.

I don’t really see any close analogy here. American public schools would let Muslim girls wear headscarves and not think twice about it. But as a general matter, how a symbol is treated by the “legal framework” is a matter which should be democratically decided, unless it is Constitutionally protected free speech, or free exercise, in which case the legal framework has to allow the public expression that symbol represents.

Bottom line, religious people will not shut, go away, make their basic beliefs and identity into shamefaced private hobbies that no one else has to see or look at or be affected by. That is not what the US Constitution provides, and it is nto going to happen. The saying goes that free speech requires thick skin. The same is true of free exercise. People who believe in different religions, or in no religion, have to have thick skin in our pluralistic society. Because everybody is going to expressing themselves, in public, and in the political and legal process.

Toleration is no virtue if the stuff you have to tolerate is easy to tolerate. A tolerant, diverse and pluralistic society requires tolerance for free speech, as Justice Holmes put it, that we hate. It also requires us, pursuant to the same First Amendment, to tolerate free exercise of religion that we (or some of us) hate as well.

So be it. God bless America. Let 100 flowers bloom.

@Lex In my view the religious are absolutely free to follow their relgions in their own homes and at their churches. They are also free to promote their worldview through publications and door-knocking. They are not allowed to use their religious belief as an excuse in the court of law, and they are not to receive any state funding (ie. tax exemptions) due to their status as a religion. Under the law a religious group is just another organization of citizens. Their symbols are irrelevant to the citizenry at large, and thus should be ignored in terms of the legal framework.

I do not believe in creationism, as it is commonly understood in the USA, so I would join you in opposing that. However, if we are going to have “public”, i.e. government run schools, which we would be better off without, the majority in the community can and should run them as well or as badly as they want, in accordance with the views of the majority in that district. If the people who are against it cannot prevail they can try again next election, or move, or put their kids in private schools, or try to undo at home what is taught in school.

Many public schools “impose” teaching regarding sexual morality, American history, politics and economics and all kinds of stuff that is ideological in nature and opposed by many citizens, like me. These parents have the same set of options I just mentioned.

The difference between advocating and imposing is whether you win the election. You advocate to get votes to win elections to pass laws to impose your beliefs. Anyone passing any law is “imposing”. Law is imposition. Democracy is about enacting law. It is about determining who will impose on whom, under what circumstances. That is true no matter what your beliefs are or what they are based on. There is no difference between an ideological motivation and a religious one in this regard. The only differnce is whether you agree with it, and whether you have the political power to impose it. If you think “religion bad, my view good” you are not making an argument, you are taking a side. Which is fine. That is what elections are for. Arguments end at the ballot box.

The folks who obsess over flag burning forget that fact when they insist on a Constitutional amendment to protect the flag; likewise, the folks who want ban certain symbols also err. Specifically, both groups don’t see that attacking a symbol not only doesn’t reduce the power of a symbol in the hearts of its believers, it strengthens it by putting the belief in adversity.

Like I said in the previous post, France would have done better to focus convincing people of the error of those specific attitudes the French government disagrees with. Instead of kicking her out, they should have pointed out her rights as a citizen of France.

There is a free exercise clause in the US Constitution. Free exercise means that religion has a public character. Religious believers have the right to democratically enact their values in law the same way any citizen who believes in anything can do. Religious believers, like myself, will continue to promote our beliefs in all ways and in all venues, which as citizens of the USA we have a Contitutionally embodied right to do. France is different, of course. So-called separation of church and state is not a term from the Constitution.

Symbols have power, are relevant, because they are symbols, i.e. not merely their tangible reality but what they symbolize. To pretend this is not so does not solve anything.

For instance, the Catholic Church has long taught that the Host is really and truly the body and blood of Christ. Likewise, the Catholic Church recognizes it has the chemical and physical properties of bread and wine. The substance of the Host is the body and blood. The accidental properties of it are of bread and wine.

This distinction between substance and accident appears in non-theological contexts as well. The Flag is substantially stands for the Republic. It has the accidental properties of cloth. May we burn it, as we may burn cloth? May we regulate its disposal under the force of law, as we may regulate the disposal of cloth?