And as a moral, just, and honorable person, I do not find civil laws based on Judeo-Christian tradition particularly confining.”
“One hypothetical example I use is human sacrifice.
If a particular religion were outlawed in the US due to a passage in it's holy book condoning human sacrifice, that would be in violation of the First Amendment.”
I don’t think anyone in the Union is going to be permitted to practice human sacrifice as a religious observance (I know you know this, and I know you do not advocate any such practices), and I doubt First Amendment religious provisions would receive even so much as a moment’s judicial notice in the consideration. We aren’t allowed to falsely cry “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre, despite a First Amendment provision protecting free speech, and ritual human sacrifice will certainly fare no better than crying “FIRE!” You may be perfectly assured that such an act would most decidedly immediately subject one to the criminal laws of some one or another legal jurisdiction.
In the present judicial atmosphere one cannot even count on First Amendment protections for religious practices far less bizarre than the one you describe (and again, yes, I understand you do not propose their practice). In fact, the First has been turned on its head, and it would seem that the ‘free exercise thereof’ provision will soon be found contrary to the ‘prohibition of establishment’ provision (it is now, in reality, if not pro forma).
The First Amendment, remarkably, has become the primary instrument in use to exclude religious practitioners, primarily Christians, from participation in public life. Is this the result either we, the presently living, or the long-departed generation of the Founding Fathers, expected the prohibition against religious establishment would produce? Surely, that is not the case.
A little perspective on an issue almost sure to arise:
Has anyone considered what would be involved in an actual circumstance where we had an accomplished establishment of religion in America? Is it not so that we ought to consider it?
If a particular religion were to be “established” by this union of states, what actions would one reasonably expect The Congress to take to accomplish that end?
1) A resolution establishing a specific denomination as the “official” state religion of this country.
2) The expenditure of public funds directly subsidizing the operations of that denomination, to the exclusion of all others.
3) A resolution mandating the public and private observance of religious holidays and other religious days specific to that denomination (and perhaps to the exclusion of all others).
4) The enactment of laws codifying, at least in part, the church doctrines specific to that denomination and perhaps outlawing, as well, the public and private observance of the doctrines of other denominations and sects.
5) A resolution mandating the education of all children, if not adults, in the doctrines of the “established” church, or perhaps the establishment of public schools devoted to religiously approved education, to the exclusion of any other institutions of education, public or private.
6) An outright ban of the public or private practice of certain categories of religions. For example, Congress might outlaw all organizations it would choose to designate as being a “cult”, even though the cult’s practices might not come into conflict with any other long established and well received public policies.
7) As a matter of custom or fundamental law, the right of high church officers to occupy certain governmental posts (such as Secretary of Education, Secretary of State, or perhaps Attorney General).
Does the above, in any way, resemble the controversies with which public forums are presently seized? And what, exactly, is meant by ‘government sponsored’ or ‘government sanctioned’ religion?
Anyone?
Congress doesn't even have to bother, YHAOS; for the simple reason that there effectively already is a federal "establishment" of religion: Secular Humanism. And it has a most jealous God, one that will not brook any "false idol" in preference to itself. Which is why the Christian faith is "persecuted" these days, inexorably and progressively delegitimated by the federal courts.
And surely you've noticed that Christian-bashing is the last "socially-acceptable form of bigotry" in America....
YHAOS,
An excellent question posed with remarkable clarity.
A curious thought struck me as I was reading commentaries about the emergence of the Christian experience outside the realm of the established church. Your remarks crystallized my insight.
I have long been dismayed that mainline denominations - Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, et al - have moved far to the left during the past 40 years.
I have been a part of the institution for nearly all of those years. Those of us who were raised in the church when it revered traditional Christian thought grew increasingly frustrated. Many left the church and began ministries outside institutional frameworks. There is no question but that followers of Christ are as numerous as ever.
The troubling aspect of this transition in the institutional church runs parallel with the government's opression of religion. That opression is demonstrably ideological. It is socialist and humanist.
Church institutional leadership has kept pace with the ideology of the left. Clearly they have done so to preserve the influence of the church in the public sector. Tragically they have not understood that they have put themselves in bed with the devil.
Just this same condition ocurred in Germany in the 30s. The church sold its soul to maintain its profile.
Diminished numbers in the church in no way demonstrate a lessening of spirituality. In fact, it probably demonstrates quite the opposite.