Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
> At 11:13 AM +0100 24/3/02, Martin W. Smith wrote:
>
> > > How would it be to say that the United States is a Christian state? It is,
> >> for all intents and purposes, isn't it?
> >
> >Not for *all* intents and purposes, but, yes, the US does not fully
> >implement the strong interpretation of the principle of separation of
> >church and state.
>
> I'm not sure I'd agree with that. The head of state in the US is not also
> the head of the officially sponsored church. (As in the UK for example.)

That's why I referred to the *strong* interpretation of the principle.
The weak intrpretation is the one that was probably meant originally and
the one I think you mean here.  I agree that the US does fully implement
the weak interpretation, which is, simply, that there must be no state
religion.

>But even in the UK, the church/state unity is almost entirely symbolic,
>the monarch is not the head of government and it is no longer compulsory
>to adhere to the dogmas of the official church.
>
> It seems to me that, while there is also much symbolic official adherence
> to religion in the US government, it is also largely ritual. And even so,
> that is not at all in conflict with the separation of church and state.

In the strong intrpretation it is.  For example, there have been court
cases in the US in which the people have sued to have manger scenes
removed from government buildings.  That's a strong interpretation
thing.  And there have been cases where individuals have sued school
districts to stop the school from having a Christian prayer before the
football game.  That sort of thing.  The symbols and rituals never
represent all religions, especially considering that atheism is,
essentially, a religion of no religion.  The strong interpretation has
two points.  First, displaying a relgious symbol from one religion can
be considered offensive to members of the other religions, and to
atheists.  Second, displaying symbols and allowing rituals from one
religion at state sponsored events or at state buildings implies that
that one religion has a voice in government that the other religions
don't have.  At some point, that voice becomes the imposition of a state
religion, and members of other religions will at best be less inclined
to support government decisions and at worst more inclined to act to
subvert them.

And they should be suspicious and subversive in that situation, so I
think implementing the strong interpretation is necessary.  I think it
is even more necessary implement the strong interpretation for the sake
of international relations.  If we want the young people of Iran to
implement a secular government, and President Bush wants us to set a
good example, how can the US set a good example that will convince the
Iranians to implement a secular state? US movies, TV, music, etc already
have too big an influence in the world.  If the US doesn't implement the
strong interpretation, then Iranians will naturally assume that if they
give ground to secularism, the US will overpower them there as well.

There is a reason why one always addresses the President as Mr
President.  Even close friends of the President address him as Mr
President.  The reason is that he must maintain the separation of person
and office.  He can't function as the President if he let's his personal
relationships color his decisions.  I'm saying the separation of church
and state is the same kind of thing.  I'm saying that, in the interest
of international relations, we have to do the same kind of thing that
the EU countries had to do so they could all convert to the euro.  They
all had to meet certain strict economic criteria.  We have to do the
same thing with secular democracy.  We all have to meet certain secular
requirements.

martin

--
Martin Smith               email: [log in to unmask]
Vollsveien 9               tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482               mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway