Separation anxiety
One price of living in paradise lately has been seeing references to God and religion disappear from public life and government speech, from the cross at Camp Smith to "so help me God" in the police department oath. "Price of Paradise" asks, is this right and beneficial or is it unnecessary and undesirable?--John Flanagan,
contributing editorDon't erase references | Removal assures liberty
Are official references to God and religion unconstitutional, or should we keep them? 'Price of Paradise' on the radio
Who: Guests: Joe Gomes, attorney and state representative; and Mitchell Kahle, president of Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church. Host: John Flanagan, Star-Bulletin contributing editor.
When: 8 p.m.
Where: KKEA, 1420-AM
Join in: Call 296-1420 or toll-free from the neighbor islands, 1-866-400-1420 during the show. Cell phones: Star-1420 or Pound-1420.
BACK TO TOP
|
LET'S NOT remove every reference to "God" or the "divine" from government speech. To do so ignores the neutrality component of the Establishment Clause, denies the centrality of faith in the formation of our country and state and reduces the U.S. Constitution, a seminal document of human history, to a "zero-tolerance" code of conduct. It’s impossible and
ill-considered to erase
all references to the divineBy Joe Gomes
Leaving religious references in government speech intact does not "establish" a government religion that our founders sacrificed to avoid. Even if religious words and symbols have the incidental effect of endorsing religious belief, the risk of creating a state-sponsored religion by their inclusion is no greater than that posed by adopting as law religious doctrines, such as the Judeo-Christian commandment "Thou shall not kill."
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals missed the mark last June when it held, in the suit brought by physician-attorney Michael Newdow of Sacramento, Calif., that public school children reciting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. While the decision seems logical, it is flawed. It missed the forest for the trees.
FOLLOWING Newdow's logic, a public school teacher in Hawaii would violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution by having students recite the preamble to the Hawaii state Constitution.
The preamble states: "We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawaii State motto, 'Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono.'"
According to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, divine means "of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god." Newdow's zero-tolerance policy could construe "grateful for Divine Guidance" as coercive and an unconstitutional endorsement of religious beliefs.
Another section of our state Constitution subject to such attack is Article XII, section 7: "The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua'a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights."
IF A MERE recitation by students of a pledge or preamble with religious words is unconstitutional, the state's obligation under Article XII to "reaffirm" and "protect" customary and traditional Hawaiian religious practices is unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny.
In reality, however, this clause is not a command to establish a state religion based on traditional Hawaiian religious practices. Likewise, including the words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance does not approach establishing a state religion, nor do explicit references to the "divine" in our state Constitution or including "God" in the Honolulu Police Department's oath.
On that matter, the HPD should not have dropped "God" from its oath merely because it received a letter claiming the oath is unconstitutional. Doing so was a disservice to HPD's officers and their families.
It has also had a negative impact on our community. Given the importance of this issue and the need for experienced legal analysis, the question should be answered by the courts rather than the chief of police.
Official references to God and the divine do not automatically lead to government-established religion.
Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, in his Newdow decision dissent, said it best: "Such phrases as 'In God We Trust,' or 'under God' have no tendency to establish a religion in this county or to suppress anyone's exercise, or non-exercise, of religion, except in the fevered eye of persons who most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity.
"Those expressions have not caused any real harm of that sort over the years since 1791 and are not likely to do so in the future. As I see it, that is not because they are drained of meaning. Rather ... it is because their tendency to establish religion (or affect its exercise) is exiguous" -- in other words, extremely scanty.
Joe Gomes is an attorney and the Republican state representative for Waimanalo, Keolu Hills and Lanikai. He serves on the House Judiciary Committee. BACK TO TOP
|
FOR MORE than 150 years our nation's motto was "E Pluribus Unum," which means "out of many, one." In 1956, Congress changed the motto to "In God We Trust." Removing ‘God’
assures religious liberty
and justice for allBy Mitchell Kahle
"E Pluribus Unum" is a beautifully inclusive slogan, which truly represented the diversity of America. "In God We Trust," on the other hand, is an exclusive and false declaration.
It is exclusive and false because millions of Americans do not believe in or trust in "God." The word "God" evokes monotheism, a concept that is almost exclusive to the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
In Hawaii -- where more than 100,000 residents subscribe to the tenets of Buddhism; where thousands practice the rites of Shintoism; where Hawaiians retain their traditional ho'o-mana; and where thousands are atheist, agnostic or secular humanist -- the government's prejudice in favor of "God" is particularly disturbing.
The advocates of Christian theocracy -- a nation of laws based on the Bible -- claim that the "separation of church and state" is a myth because the phrase is not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. They are mistaken.
Although the Constitution does not include the exact wording, the principle of state-church separation derives from these constitutional provisions:
>> Article VI: "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."In deciding most cases, the Supreme Court has applied the "Lemon Test," from the Lemon vs. Kurtzman decision of 1971, which requires that all government activity:>> First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
>> Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
>> Must serve a principally secular purpose.Accordingly, the principle of separation is not based on the explicit wording of the Constitution, but on our evolving process of common law and more than 50 years of affirmative jurisprudence.>> Must not, in effect, advance religion over non-religion.
>> Must not involve excessive entanglement with religion.
THE DISTINCTION between personal religious expression and government religious preference is easy to recognize and understand. Individuals are free to exercise religious expression in public, but the government may not promote religion on behalf of the public.
With the exception of "time, place and manner" restrictions, citizens are free to express religious views in public, including prayer and proselytizing, as long as their activity does not infringe upon the rights of others.
Children are allowed to pray in public schools or read the Bible during lunch, recess or other personal times.
Government employees, including elected officials and police officers, may pray, sing religious songs, recite scripture, wear religious jewelry or otherwise express their chosen religion with complete freedom, as long as their personal activity does not interfere with the obligation to serve the public with integrity, respect and fairness.
THE SEPARATION of state and church protects religious freedom for all Americans, including minorities and those who choose to reject religion altogether.
Congress should restore "E Pluribus Unum" as our national motto.
The Pledge of Allegiance also should be restored to its original form without the word "God."
McKinley High School should remove "Love for God" from its code of honor for students.
Religion is and always should remain a personal matter for each individual to choose or reject as his conscience dictates.
Government preferences for one particular religion over others or for religion generally over non-religion are prohibited by the Constitution and all violations must be neutralized if this nation is ever to achieve true religious liberty and justice for all.
Mitchell Kahle, an atheist, is the founder and president of Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church and co-owner of Island Infotech, an Internet Web site development company.
|
BACK TO TOP
|
The Price of Paradise appears each week in the Sunday Insight section. The mission of POP is to contribute lively and informed dialog about public issues, particularly those having to do with our pocketbooks. Reader responses appear later in the week. If you have thoughts to share about today's POP articles, please send them, with your name and daytime phone number, to pop@starbulletin.com, or write to Price of Paradise, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 7 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 210, 500 Ala Moana, Honolulu, HI 96813.
John Flanagan
Contributing Editor
