OPINION & EDITORIAL
Athiests misuse First Amendment
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Darryn Beckstrom:
- Ignorance, irresponsibility doom broken segregated fee system (November 15, 2005)
- State should endorse monotheism (November 22, 2005)
- Neutrality violations rampant in SSFC (December 14, 2005)
- Acidic justice (June 30, 2005)
- New course for Madison in 2006 (January 15, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Beckstrom wrong on religious case (September 20, 2005)
- The Gospel according to George W (October 25, 2004)
- Religion aside, faith perseveres (November 26, 2007)
- Pork: it's what's for your Rep's dinner (December 7, 2005)
- Discrimination isn't the answer (September 14, 2001)
by Darryn Beckstrom
Friday, September 16, 2005
I have a polite request for a handful of lawyers in Madison: please keep your politics within the confines of your own city. Last week, the University of Minnesota announced in addition to withdrawing from the Minnesota Faith/Health Consortium earlier this summer, it has ceased the creation of courses addressing the relationship between faith and healing after the Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit against the institution in federal court.
This recent action by a group of Madison-bred attorneys affirms the notion that the interpretation of a "wall of separation" between church and state is becoming increasingly distorted.
The First Amendment does nothing more than prohibit laws "respecting an establishment of religion." Regrettably, many anti-religious organizations have interpreted this clause — contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court — to read that no public entity shall mention religion in any form.
The Foundation not only sought the University's immediate withdrawal from the Consortium, they also demanded the research institution halt the development of the Faith/Health Clinical Leadership program. The program, in conjunction with Luther Seminary and Fairview Health Services, would have provided clinical courses to graduate students interested in researching the intersections between faith and healing.
Ironically, the Foundation sued the University before the sequence of courses was developed and offered to students. With the courses still on the drawing board, though, the Foundation naively inferred such classes were endorsing religion. Why would such an organization do this? It's quite obvious: when atheists see the word "religion," they immediately cry foul.
Unfortunately, the University succumbed to the pressures of a few sue-happy Americans. Instead of dragging the institution through the financial constraints often present with litigation, the University cowered like a child facing a schoolyard bully and conceded to the demands of the Foundation.
If the legal counsel of the University had more gumption to pursue this matter, they would have realized that both the law and academic freedom were on their side.
Studying the correlation between faith and healing — as the proposed courses intended to do — is indeed constitutional. The Foundation, on the other hand, believes public universities should avoid the discussion of the "r" word completely. Nonetheless, there is a difference between studying the role of religion in American life and endorsing a particular religion.
Atheists can't seem to accept the distinction.
If it had seen the inside of a courtroom, the Foundation's substandard legal argument would have been quashed by established case law. To determine whether the University violated the establishment clause by involvement in the Consortium and offering of such classes, the federal court would have applied the test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman. If the Court applied the Lemon test, it would have found the actions of the University indeed had a secular purpose, they did not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion and they did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Simply put, the University's actions were constitutional.
The constitutionality of the courses aside, the organization also encroaches on academic freedom in a university setting. The Foundation considers itself a group of "freethinkers." Unfortunately, these freethinkers prefer to censor intellectual thought that doesn't comport to their ideals. In the end, intellectual diversity has been forced to take a backseat while atheists continue to force their way to the helm of curricular control.
An overarching question raised by the recent actions of the Freedom from Religion Foundation is somewhat obvious: will this litigation ever end? The establishment clause of the First Amendment is one of the most litigated provisions of the Constitution. And the Foundation doesn't seem to be letting up on the citizens of Minnesota any time soon. The organization is now attacking Gov. Pawlenty's proposal to create a Minnesota Council of Faith-based Initiatives to better assist religious organizations in providing social services to the citizens in the state.
Atheists and those organizations targeting what they erroneously believe to be actions of the Religious Right need to realize they have been using the wrong forum for their assault on religion. They have been using our nation's courtrooms to influence nothing more than what amounts to public policy. Sometimes they find a judge who is sympathetic to their politics, sometimes they don't. Nonetheless, the pages of the Constitution should not be a place to fight hollow legal arguments. The halls of our state legislatures and Congress would be more appropriate.
The Constitution bars the "establishment of religion," and studying its role in American life is hardly "establishing" anything, except for the right of students to study a question of importance and interest to the medical community.
Darryn Beckstrom (beckstrom@badgerherald.com) is a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.
Anonymous (September 16, 2005 @ 12:59am):
It's not just atheists who are fans of the separation of church and state. I'm a Christian, and I'm a big one.
The program being discussed was to be investigating, or "investigating", the link between faith and health. You can bet your bottom dollar that they'd find one, by hook or by crook.
The program's message, essentially, was NOT to investigate IF there was a link. Rather, it was, according to its own website, to "enhanc[e] leadership capacity to link faith and health."
And who exactly makes up the Minnesota Faith Health Consortium? Fairview Health Services, the Academic Health Center, and Luther Seminary, affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Imagine I owned a Limburger Cheese company. If I started a medical study to 'enhance the link between' cheese consumption and health, what do you think I'd find? The research would command that everyone buy Limburger Cheese by the truckload! Pretty convenient.
But we're not talking about cheese. Or private money. This program would take my public tax dollars and put it towards funding a program that will endorse a religion, if even implicitly.
It's bad medicine, it's bad governing, and most importantly of all, it's bad religion.
Anonymous (September 16, 2005 @ 8:37am):
Repeal the First Amendment!
Anonymous (September 16, 2005 @ 12:53pm):
I work at a hospital in Milwaukee, used to work at UW Hospital in Madison, and I can tell you right now that faith and healing have a very close connection. There are many many people who, upon being admitted, ask to see a preist, pastor, or some other religious representative. And just look at how many of our medical instsitutions have religous names. Hell, many, including UW Hospital, have a chapel inside the hospital itself. So it is no winder that some University program would want to look at the the significance of the connection between faith and religion.
I wonder if the previous poster has ever worked in health care before. There are plenty of nurses, doctors, and other staff who see the value of faith in a health setting even though some of them are atheists. That the University of Minnesota or any public college might want to look at that connection is not that far of a stretch. And we never even got that chance to see the actual cirriculum of the course. If the basis of the course was to conclude that any particular religion is vital to health care, and it should be the only one then yes, that is an unconstitutional use of public funds to endorse a particular religion. But, if the course is merely a discussion of the connection, asking why that connection is there, without saying that any one religion is better or should be used exclusively, then it is perfectly lega and SHOULD be in the cirriculum.
Anonymous (September 16, 2005 @ 2:10pm):
Nice job pushing the "people of faith are an oppressed minority" line, Darryn!
Sara Gittings (September 16, 2005 @ 3:18pm):
Given that the underlying problem this author seems to have is with unreasonable persecution, she should be careful who she calls an atheist. Demonizing reasonable people who defend this country's Constitution is very irresponsible for someone seeking a doctorate in political science.
Additionally, a more careful reading of the words of the Founding Fathers would do some good in this article. I have no doubt that, despite the evil intentions of lawyering atheists from the heathanistic capital of immorality, Madison WI, had this case gone to a judge who wasn't a religious idealogue, such "studies" would be ruled unconstitutional.
Also, it's pretty laughable when this battle is portrayed as an outright assault on religion in general. It is quite clear what is really at stake here, and that is a much needed fight against the right wing, conservative Christian overhaul of our system of government and American society as a whole.
Anonymous (September 16, 2005 @ 4:17pm):
"assist religious organizations"
Sounds like preferential teatment to me.
Anonymous (September 16, 2005 @ 5:59pm):
So basically liberals still can't get over the fact they lost the last election? that's the funny thing.
Anonymous (September 17, 2005 @ 12:19am):
Atheists are THE most discriminated against group in America. Is there even one openly atheist Senator or Governor? Are there any atheist Representatives? I don't mean a "secular humanist" or a Pagan or a Wiccan, I mean someone who completely rejects all the superstitious nonsense about god (or gods in the case of Pagans and Buddhists).
Yeah, I thought so.
PS. Being an Atheist Republican is pretty lonely, but then living in Kansas means it dosen't matter how I vote (hell, we don't even have a presidential primary).
Chad Inman (September 18, 2005 @ 1:38am):
The title of this editorial online misspells "atheist" (it transposes the i and the e).
Anyway, here's a response I wrote to Darryn's editorial. I hope it will be published, but in case it's not, here it is:
Darryn Beckstrom's September 16th editorial ("Atheists misuse First Amendment") misrepresents atheists, the First Amendment, and the case brought by a church/state separation group against University of Minnesota programs that would have promoted religion.
Beckstrom thinks the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) should stick to its own city, instead of filing suits in other areas of the country. But the law makes no such restrictions. FFRF has members in all 50 states, and joined seven Minnesota taxpayers in the UM case. FFRF and allied plaintiffs have had standing in this and similar cases, and the courts have recognized this.
Beckstrom accuses "anti-religious" organizations of interpreting the establishment clause to mean that public entities should not mention religion. I assume she refers not just to FFRF, but such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who oppose government policies respecting an establishment of religion. Calling them "anti-religious" disregards their defense of free exercise of religion, and ignores their religious members, who don't want government endorsing or getting entangled in religion.
None of these groups have filed suit for mere mention of religion. State university courses in religious studies, sociology, philosophy, history and many other disciplines mention religion or God all the time, with no opposition from anti-establishment groups. That's because they have the secular purpose of teaching about religion, rather than promoting it. Such was not the case with the UM partnership in the Minnesota Faith Health Consortium, nor with its faith/health leadership curriculum.
These programs were not merely studying the correlation between faith and healing. Publicly funded scientific studies on these variables have been conducted in a neutral, peer-reviewed context, with no opposition from anti-establishment groups. In contrast, the Minnesota programs were not neutral, but violated all three parts of the Supreme Court's "Lemon" test.
The University's own publicity announced its intention to train faith/health leaders for prison ministries and church congregations. That intention violates the first part of the Lemon test, since state programs must have a secular purpose.
The UM programs presupposed that faith would enhance health, and their purpose was to foster students' faith and train them to inject religion into healthcare. That violates the second part of the Lemon test, since it would have the primary effect of advancing religion.
The Consortium partnered publicly funded UM with Luther Seminary, a private religious organization. The UM faith/health leadership courses were offered to Luther Seminary students to fulfill requirements for degrees in divinity, or theology in pastoral care. This integration of church and state resources and programs violates the third part of the Lemon test, which protects against excessive entanglement between church and state.
Beckstrom blames atheists for UM's withdrawal from the faith/health programs. She thinks UM yielded to bullying, and that the case law was on UM's side. But her citation of Lemon v. Kurtzman undermines her argument, and bolsters the case brought by FFRF and its Minnesota members. Before the UM case, the courts had sided three times with FFRF against government funding of faith-based initiatives, including a ruling against state funding of the Montana Faith Health Cooperative. With all of this legal precedent already established, UM was wise to conserve its resources and withdraw from the faith-based programs. Beckstrom's main quarrel shouldn't be with the atheists who brought suit, but with the courts that have decided these cases in favor of keeping church and state separate.
Beckstrom thinks the legislature, not the courts, is the proper forum for challenging programs like the proposed Minnesota Council of Faith-Based Initiatives. But federal funding of religion was already outlawed by the US Congress in 1791 with the ratification of the First Amendment and its anti-establishment clause. With the 1868 ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, state and local funding of religion were also outlawed. With the legislative matter already settled by our Constitution, judicial challenges are the appropriate response to violations.
When will the litigation stop? When taxpayer resources stop being diverted unconstitutionally toward programs that promote religion. Every citizen has the right to financially support the religion of his or her choice, or no religion at all. Taxpayer-funded faith-based initiatives take away that choice, and plaintiffs who challenge them are fighting for the rights of all of us.
Anonymous (September 18, 2005 @ 11:26pm):
Well done, I hope your response does indeed get published.
Anonymous (September 21, 2005 @ 1:22pm):
I'm a white christian and I am sick and tired of being an oppressed minority in this country where I can't have my views personally paid for by the government. It should be the priority of the government to help out us poor, oppressed fundamentalist protestants by making sure everyone is indoctrinated in our faith with their own tax dollars. Maybe then we christains can rise up against the hethen majority and become a respected powerful part of society!
