News
 

Debate highlights Pledge, religious issues

Experts argue Founding Fathers' ideas about the division of church, state

By Dusti Rhodes
The Daily Cougar

Students and faculty filled the Law Center's Krost Hall auditorium Wednesday to hear two religious experts' interpretations of the Founding Fathers' intentions on separating church and state.

Kevin J. Hasson, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, discussed the issue for the fourth annual Andrews Kurth Debate, "Considering God in Government."

In his opening statement, Lynn said his argument was not meant to be "anti-religious," but rather was against people who feel the language in the Pledge of Allegiance and on United States currency no longer serves a ceremonial purpose for citizens.

"When language about God is no longer ceremonial, it is a step back for religion," Lynn said.

Hasson opened with a story about a misplaced parking barrier that became an object of worship for one group and the question of how government, which should remain secular, deals with the worship of public property.

The question Hasson said he felt should be addressed was, "Why religious liberty?"

Questions for the speakers covered some of the most prominent cases of church and state in recent news, including the <I>Newdow v. U.S. Congress<P> case, the posting of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and the use of the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.

With regard to <I>Newdow<P>, which addressed the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, Hasson said the words were added in order to incorporate the Declaration of Independence into the Pledge because the Declaration is "where our rights come from."

The Pledge is used to honor the founders of the United States, not to imply religious affiliation, Hasson said. He said the Founding Fathers' intentions were to give states, not the federal government, the right to decide on religious matters.

Therefore, Hasson said, states should not be forced to support religious institutions -- they should have the right to choose whether they do.

Lynn's position was based on his belief that the use of phrases like "under God" and posting the Ten Commandments as a historical reference diminish the meaning of the statements and are an insult to those who base their beliefs on them.

"We are not doing religion any favors," Lynn said.

Lynn also said the use of the religious symbols and phrases neglects those who do not practice Christianity. For example, although the Pledge of Allegiance may not directly encourage the adoption of a particular religious belief, Lynn said it creates awkward situations for students who don't agree with the "under God" phrase.

Lynn concluded his argument by affirming his belief in an America in which presidents don't tell people what to believe and ministers don't tell believers how to vote, while Hasson closed by referencing James Madison and his idea of "a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin."
 

 Send comments to dcnews@mail.uh.edu