• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is separation of church and state a double edged sword?

3

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Forgive the title; my creativity has left me.

Since the issue of homosexuality and the thought of a ?Gay Pride? month was mentioned here recently, I thought I would see what you guys thought about this:

A local state university is putting on a play. This play is called ?Corpus Christi.? In this play, Jesus is depicted as a homosexual. They play has not opened yet, and I do not intend to go see it, but from what I have been told and what as been aired on the local news, it spends a great deal of time mocking and defaming Christianity. Several community members are organizing a lawsuit they will file on July 5 if the play is not cancelled or moved to a private location (as opposed to the state university?s campus). Many of the state?s legislators also oppose this play. These are the facts as I have collected them.

Okay, the question is this: Is this a violation of the ?church and state? doctrine? This as yet unnamed university is sponsoring a play which, at its roots, is defamatory and critical of Christianity (regardless of its art value). Should this door swing both ways? If a government cannot support a religion, should it fund the bashing of a religion? What are the implications on the First Amendment?
 
It's a foolish idea for a play, IMHO.

The seperation between state and church isn't even touched in this case, as far as I can see. I'm not familiar with the laws in the US, so I'll use the Dutch ones for this case.

Denying someone's right on practising a religion is not allowed, mocking religions is only allowed in certain cases. Depending on the intentions with which the play was created, the play can either be cancelled, allowed to continue or moved to another location.

Without more data on the play itself it's impossible to make a fair judgement.
 
I say let the play go on.

Soon being politically correct will be so rigidly enforced that you will get a fine everytime you say "god" or "jesus" on state or federal property.
 
Helpless - Not the intellectual discussion I was looking for, but thank you for your meaningless post.

Elledan - The issue of separation of church and state appears when the STATE university (FYI: in the US, State are regions with their own governments) is funding this play. Would it be appropriate for a state institution to fund, say, "Jesus Christ Superstar?" Would that show be allowed to continue? How is religious freedom balanced against freedom of speech?

Sammyson - Again, would you allow the funding of "Jesus Christ Superstar?" Is there a difference?
 
Just to interject here. Separation of church and state is not a law, it is a (often misquoted) quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"There now exists a separation of church and state, such that the state cannot interfere with the church, but NOT such that the church cannot interfere with the state."
(added bolding for the part of the quote that is rarely included when quoting Mr. Jefferson)

Of course, this play does not really fall under religious protection. As far as I can tell, the play is not about a religion, but rather about bashing a religion. This entirely falls under the right to free speech. Since the freedom of religion only protects a persons right to practice his/her religion without interference, and does not protect a person's religion from slander, there is nothing really to stop the play from going on.

It is an interesting point that if the play had been "Jesus Christ Superstar" the ACLU would have jumped all over it and it would never have gotten to the first practice. That is a terrible double standard that goes on in this country. I have no problem with either play taking place on public ground, or even being funded by the government. It in no way violates my freedom of religion. I would, however, have a problem if funding was used by the government to allow the display of a play while other, more pressing needs went unanswered.
 
its not a double edged sword....the play doesn't promote a religion.. end of story😛 jesus christ superstar does.

it is best that the interpretation be seperation between church and state. look to history and the world for examples why religion and governement do not mix.....ever.
 


<< Just to interject here. Separation of church and state is not a law, it is a (often misquoted) quote from Thomas Jefferson:

&quot;There now exists a separation of church and state, such that the state cannot interfere with the church, but NOT such that the church cannot interfere with the state.&quot;
(added bolding for the part of the quote that is rarely included when quoting Mr. Jefferson) >>



What What What??? From where is the source for this highly dubious quote?

Jefferson NEVER said any such thing.

His Seperation of Church and State quote comes from his Letter to the Danbury Baptists in reply to their fears of government establishment of religion. In it, he CLEARLY defines the intent of the First Amendment

The entire text of his letter can be read here:

Final verision of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists

&quot;To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, &amp; Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, &amp; in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man &amp; his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, &amp; not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should &quot;make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,&quot; thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; 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.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection &amp; blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves &amp; your religious association, assurances of my high respect &amp; esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.&quot;
 
Elledan is right, this is not a Church and State issue. It is a Civil issue.

On one side we have a group that wants to put on a controversial play; they
have freedom of expression in presenting the ideas of the play.

Some of those ideas are offensive to another group; this group has the freedom
to protest the what they feel is the offensive nature of the message in the play.

The second group thinks that if the play is presented on a State sponsored campus,
it implied state approval of the message. What they are asking is the play
be moved (or removed) to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest on the part
of the state institution.
The University is within its rights to keep the play on campus, but can also act
in consideration of the sensibilities of the viewing public and University trustees.

Your second question really identifies why there is a need for a separation of Church
and State doctrines; because this case is dealing with two different issues.
It is just as allowable for the school to sponsor &quot;Jesus Christ Superstar&quot; as
it is to sponsor &quot;Corpus Christi&quot; because they are equally valid as plays.
Both involve the students who put on and act in the plays in an educational experience
in Theatrical Design, Art appreciation and interpretation, Drama, Music, Sound
and Lightning, and many other aspects of Theatre.
Where they come into conflict or aggreement with outside groups is again in the message,
that the audience is likely to interpret from the play. But art itself does not attempt
to force a particular idea or viewpoint on the viewer, it attempts to solicit thought
and discussion on the idea, but leaves the audience free to be enlightened, disgusted,
or merely entertained.
In this case the second issue is in this second group thinking that a challenge to
their beliefs equals a challenge to society overall.

I find it more telling that these groups think their beliefs cannot stand up to a little
public ridicule/criticism; that they feel the need to challenge an opposing view being
presented in a public forum.
Instead they should be trying to get &quot;Jesus Christ Superstar&quot; on the schedule as the
next play in the series (Although, I thought Godspell made a better Musical).



 
Cerebrus - So you do recognize the two plays as having the same &quot;problem&quot; as far as being sponsored by a state university? In that light they should either be both allowed or both disallowed. You seem to advocate allowing both of them by allowing CC to go on.

Is having the government fund you to say &quot;God is good&quot; the same situation as having the governemnt fund you to say &quot;God is bad?&quot;
 
Speaking for myself (not Cerebus451) a free state should have the willingness and
ability to allow both plays to be objectively presented as plays. And not attempt
to either stifle or promote them in any way.

(Select politicians may reserve the right to express thier own opinion; but this should
not be taken as the single voice of state policy)

Your next question is misguided, IMO.
In the case of a State University, the government is funding educational discourse.
That means that both conciliatory and conflicting ideas are expected to be presented
as part of the learning process required to complete the body of courses leading to
a degree.
They are not specifically funding anyone to say anything. However, the trustees of
the University have a responsibility to maintain an environment in which the students
are encouraged and challenged to develop such learning. As such, it is within their
purview to accept controversial topics within a controlled environment (on campus),
that can be used to the benefit of the overall student body.




 
CQuinn - How likely is it that they could get &quot;JCS&quot; permitted? How many minutes would it take the ACLU to scream? Think it could be timed with an egg-timer? The issue isn't criticism of Christianity, the issue is the SPONSORING of said criticism by a state institution. Do you think it was mere CHANCE that this play was chosen?

Aihyah - How is &quot;Religion is good&quot; forbidden but &quot;Religion is bad&quot; not forbidden? So it is okay for a government to support the defamation of a religion, as long as they do not say &quot;religion is good?&quot;

Johnny - So your position is that it is a satire and does not qualify as a religious message? Perhaps a bit of background. This play is touted as a drama, not a comedy. It has been described by its proponents (not reviews or the press) as &quot;though provoking&quot; and a &quot;serious work.&quot; Would you also not oppose &quot;JCS?&quot;

I have yet to express an opinion BTW; I am just doing the devil's work right now.
 


<< Complete separation of church and state is a humanist fantasy. >>



It should be every religion's fantasy. Separating church and state is the ONLY way to guarantee complete religious freedom.

In my opinion, the government should refrain from any act that can be construed as an endorsement of any religion.
 
AmusedOne - What about a government institution speaking out against/defaming a religion? Does that fall into the same category of endorsing a religion?
 


<< AmusedOne - What about a government institution speaking out against/defaming a religion? Does that fall into the same category of endorsing a religion? >>



I believe so. Nuetrality is the key here, not just refraining from endorsing a religion, but complete nuetrality is the key to religious freedom.
 
Wouldn?t that play be called bigoted by some of our fellow forum users if it were making fun of Homosexuals instead of Christians?😕 Plus I doubt that the University would sponsor it if was. I think the people putting on that play need some diversity training.😀

😀
 
First, in response to AmusedOne, I cannot remember off the top of my head where the quote came from and I don't have the time at this moment to find it. I may have been mistaken. It may not have been an actual quote by Jefferson, but rather an interpretation by someone else in reference to Jefferson's speech to the Baptist association. Whether you take what Jefferson actually said or the paraphrase that I had, it is still the same. People misintrepret the &quot;wall of separation&quot; to be an impenetrable wall that keeps the government out of church affairs and the church out of government affairs, which is wrong. The &quot;wall of separation&quot; is only mean to keep the government out of church affairs.

To Aihyah, JCS only &quot;promotes&quot; religion if you watch the play and take the messages contained therein to heart. Again, if one cannot &quot;promote&quot; their religion, then it should also not be allowed for someone to decry said religion. Freedom of religion only protects your right to worship the god of your choosing, it does not protect you from hearing someone else talk about their religion.

To 351Cleveland, yes both plays should be allowed to go on. As a Christian, &quot;Corpus Christi&quot; offends me, but I don't have the right to deny someone else's right to freedom of expression just because it offends me.

It is a travesty that if JCS were the play, or as Kilgor mentioned a play that was anti-gay, that the ACLU would burn the campus down before they allowed the play to go on, and yet because the play is only anti-Christian it's just fine and dandy.
 
Wouldn?t that play be called bigoted by some of our fellow forum users if it were making fun of Homosexuals instead of Christians?😕 Plus I doubt that the University would sponsor it if was. I think the people putting on that play need some diversity training.😀

dunno, but i think it has something to do with making fun of societal norms and the majority. 😛 If gays become the majority(hahaha right...) then i'm sure there would be plays making fun of them.
 
Cerebrus - I agree with you. I believe that both plays should be given equal treatment. Although (as a Christian) I am repulsed by CC, I have to believe that it is an expression of free speech. What I find difficult is that if JCS was to be offered in the same venue, the campus would be burned, just like you say, by the ACLU. What I have a problem with is the fact that the standard is applied so inconsistently.
 


<< First, in response to AmusedOne, I cannot remember off the top of my head where the quote came from and I don't have the time at this moment to find it. I may have been mistaken. It may not have been an actual quote by Jefferson, but rather an interpretation by someone else in reference to Jefferson's speech to the Baptist association. Whether you take what Jefferson actually said or the paraphrase that I had, it is still the same. People misintrepret the &quot;wall of separation&quot; to be an impenetrable wall that keeps the government out of church affairs and the church out of government affairs, which is wrong. The &quot;wall of separation&quot; is only mean to keep the government out of church affairs. >>



A logical impossibility, and absurd on it's face. First off, there is no such thing as a &quot;one sided wall.&quot; A wall blocks all from BOTH sides. Jefferson was an extremely intelligent and eloquent man. He would not have used the term &quot;wall,&quot; had he not meant for it to block entanglement from BOTH sides.

Secondly, when religion becomes entangled in government, government then becomes entangled in religion. You cannot mix water and dirt and not come up with mud. If religion can influence government, government then becomes a tool of that religion, to the detriment of all other religions

And finally, your bastardized version of Jefferson's Wall of Separation quote wouldn't exist, if the original and factual Jefferson letter didn't contradict Christian history revisionism's goal of entangling religion and government. The quote reeks of David Barton's work... A radical religious right author who has been proven to use questionable and downright fraudulent quotes of the Founding Fathers in his books, and who is the creator of the &quot;one sided wall&quot; farce.

Jefferson was answering political charges made against him that his REFUSAL to create national religious holidays was somehow hostile to religion. His &quot;Wall of Separation&quot; letter was sent to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fears, and explain that &quot;Wall of Separation&quot; exists to protect religion from government by keeping religion OUT of government. He ALSO had this letter published to counter the charges that his refusal to recognize religious holidays in an official manner was hostile to religion, rather than preserving religious freedom by keeping government out of religion, and religion out of government.

Maybe you should try reading ACTUAL history based on facts, instead of the obviously biased revisionist crap someone has been feeding you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top