Comments on: Is God Relevant in the Public Square? http://blog.emergingscholars.org/2009/06/is-god-relevant-in-the-public-square/ From InterVarsity's Emerging Scholars Network Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:51:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: A DIFFERENT KIND OF BLOGGING « Citizen Tom http://blog.emergingscholars.org/2009/06/is-god-relevant-in-the-public-square/comment-page-1/#comment-1329 A DIFFERENT KIND OF BLOGGING « Citizen Tom Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:04:14 +0000 http://blog.emergingscholars.org/?p=1061#comment-1329 [...] The Emerging Scholars Blog, on the other hand, asks an interesting — and the crucial — question:  Is God Relevant in the Public Square? [...] [...] The Emerging Scholars Blog, on the other hand, asks an interesting — and the crucial — question:  Is God Relevant in the Public Square? [...]

]]> By: Micheal Hickerson http://blog.emergingscholars.org/2009/06/is-god-relevant-in-the-public-square/comment-page-1/#comment-947 Micheal Hickerson Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:12:43 +0000 http://blog.emergingscholars.org/?p=1061#comment-947 Here's a related question: are private colleges and universities (e.g. Harvard, Oberlin, Liberty) part of the public square? Here’s a related question: are private colleges and universities (e.g. Harvard, Oberlin, Liberty) part of the public square?

]]> By: Doug Indeap http://blog.emergingscholars.org/2009/06/is-god-relevant-in-the-public-square/comment-page-1/#comment-906 Doug Indeap Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:45:20 +0000 http://blog.emergingscholars.org/?p=1061#comment-906 Correction: There should not be a "not" in that last line; it should read " . . . thus must allow . . ." Correction: There should not be a “not” in that last line; it should read ” . . . thus must allow . . .”

]]> By: Doug Indeap http://blog.emergingscholars.org/2009/06/is-god-relevant-in-the-public-square/comment-page-1/#comment-898 Doug Indeap Sat, 13 Jun 2009 06:04:27 +0000 http://blog.emergingscholars.org/?p=1061#comment-898 I agree that making the distinction is not always easy. It is more than desirable, though; it is critical. "Government speech" is constrained by the establishment clause. "Individual speech" is protected by the free exercise clause. If a manger scene is displayed "by" a city in its park, then that is "government speech" to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause. If a manger scene is displayed by a private person or group on a city park, it may well be "individual speech" to be evaluated under the free exercise clause. In the latter case, the city, of course, cannot discriminate against particular religions and thus must not allow other persons or groups equal opportunity to express their religious views on the city park. I agree that making the distinction is not always easy. It is more than desirable, though; it is critical. “Government speech” is constrained by the establishment clause. “Individual speech” is protected by the free exercise clause.

If a manger scene is displayed “by” a city in its park, then that is “government speech” to be assessed for compliance with the establishment clause. If a manger scene is displayed by a private person or group on a city park, it may well be “individual speech” to be evaluated under the free exercise clause. In the latter case, the city, of course, cannot discriminate against particular religions and thus must not allow other persons or groups equal opportunity to express their religious views on the city park.

]]> By: Peter V http://blog.emergingscholars.org/2009/06/is-god-relevant-in-the-public-square/comment-page-1/#comment-893 Peter V Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:56:27 +0000 http://blog.emergingscholars.org/?p=1061#comment-893 Distinguishing the public square from government, though desirable, is not as easy as it sounds. Can a city park legitimately display a manger scene at Christmas, or is that establishment of religion by government? May a public school support an optional "religious" extracurricular activity? I would say yes to both these examples, provided alternative religious expressions (including atheism) be given appropriate (proportionate?) representation/opportunity if requested, but others argue that either of these would constitute (illegal) government establishment of religion because the institutions involved are supported by government. This could even be extended to private charities that receive government money. And what constitutes an appropriate accommodation of diversity? Distinguishing the public square from government, though desirable, is not as easy as it sounds. Can a city park legitimately display a manger scene at Christmas, or is that establishment of religion by government? May a public school support an optional “religious” extracurricular activity?

I would say yes to both these examples, provided alternative religious expressions (including atheism) be given appropriate (proportionate?) representation/opportunity if requested, but others argue that either of these would constitute (illegal) government establishment of religion because the institutions involved are supported by government. This could even be extended to private charities that receive government money. And what constitutes an appropriate accommodation of diversity?

]]> By: Doug Indeap http://blog.emergingscholars.org/2009/06/is-god-relevant-in-the-public-square/comment-page-1/#comment-892 Doug Indeap Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:24:47 +0000 http://blog.emergingscholars.org/?p=1061#comment-892 In discussing issues of separation of church and state, it is critical to distinguish the "public square" from "government." The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. And in practice, there is plenty of religion out there in the public square; I see and hear of it daily on the street, on the radio, on the TV, on the internet, etc. The First Amendment's "establishment" clause constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. The First Amendment thus embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise and express his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote his or her views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. In discussing issues of separation of church and state, it is critical to distinguish the “public square” from “government.” The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. And in practice, there is plenty of religion out there in the public square; I see and hear of it daily on the street, on the radio, on the TV, on the internet, etc. The First Amendment’s “establishment” clause constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. The First Amendment thus embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise and express his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote his or her views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others.

]]>