Response to Rick and Tom

I believe that legislators can appropriately respond to the views of majorities and social movements (or not, I do not believe legislators should be rubber stamps) whether or not those views are religiously based. As I have said, however, I am opposed to religious whereas clauses. I am also opposed to government trying to express what it considers to be the religious sentiments of majorities.

 “In God We Trust” is a good example of the latter. In expressing the sentiments of the majority, it suggests that Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, and agnostics are not part of the “We” in our political community. Is it part of Christianity not to respect other citizens because of beliefs with which we disagree? And just what has been gained for religion? What is equally deplorable is that the motto on our currency would be defended in Court on the ground that it is not religious, combining disrespect with hypocrisy. (I am not, however, arguing that the motto is unconstitutional).

 In addition, to the problems I have previously mentioned of creating opportunities for corrupt and cynical politicians, religious whereas clauses would inevitably support some religions over others. To be sure, legislation often does this. But there is a world of difference in social meaning in making it explicit. Finally, I entirely agree with Tom that a line between the religious and the secular can be drawn. The religion clauses would be meaningless if no line were drawn.

Steve