Rajan Zed

In a Jan. 2 speech in Metairie, Louisiana, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country's constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him. He went on to say that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

Scalia also reportedly said that there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches.

Religion and state have been mixed throughout antiquity where many ancient political leaders claimed their rules as mandate from heaven and monarchs stressed their divine right. In some countries, the king or queen is the head of the church.

Defenders of American religious neutrality claim that it was crucial to protect religion from political manipulation. It is not fair to give religion a special treatment, they argue.

Many secularists want total eradication of religion from public sphere, branding religion as toxic and lacking value.

Some claim that neutrality, if properly understood, is a useful and appealing concept.

We asked our panel of distinguished religious leaders of the region the following question: Should governments stay neutral between nonreligion and religion?

Here is what they have to say:

GOVERNMENT SHOULD ALLOW RELIGIOUS CONTENT

Matthew T. Fisher, Reno Buddhist Center resident priest

Over 2,600 years, Buddhism has experienced state support and state repression. Sometimes the forces of nonreligion repressed Buddhism for political reasons; sometimes emperors supported Buddhism. In Japan, Shin Buddhism was viciously repressed with executions and exiles, because we taught regular people with regular lives how to live a joyful life. In 1940s America, Shin Buddhism was repressed with deportations, imprisonment and confiscation of temple property — in the name of “national security.”

The Buddha taught a Middle Way. The state should find a dynamic middle, where religion exists in some form in public life without repression or direct support. The state reflects its people. Absolute “nonreligion” by the state is not good for the morality of the people and does not represent our diverse country. Our public discourse always includes references to common religious values as are natural among all the people.

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

Ryan J. Earl, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints assistant area public affairs director

The first freedoms articulated in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution address religious freedoms, emphasizing the importance and preference the Founding Fathers of the United States placed on religion and its critical role in promoting and maintaining a free nation and its underlying institutions, including marriage and the family.

In a classic talk at Chapman University School of Law addressing religious freedom, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle and former Utah Supreme Court Justice, highlighted key societal benefits of religion and the trend towards increased government and supervision as religion diminishes (see lds.org). While having no concern with expanding international laws protecting nonreligious belief systems, he objected to doing so by reinterpreting the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion. When religion has no more right to free exercise than irreligion or any other secular philosophy, the newly expanded category of "religion" diminishes in significance.

NEUTRAL FORUMS

Brian E. Melendez, American Indian spirituality scholar

Certain institutions were crafted with the option that somewhere within them, faith or belief could be present, while other frameworks maintain just the right type of rigidity. Governments have not proven to be the appropriate place for religious discourse or functionality.

For the most part, private interest, social movements or political trends regularly seem to be accompanied with high emotion; perhaps utilizing off-centered footings for religious objectives at the same time isn’t such a great idea. Neutrality has its perks. Elected officials (in theory) are representing their local demographics, often counterbalancing abundant diversity; it’s not probable to please everyone.

So, in order not to disenfranchise a particular demographic or overposture any one group, finding a middle ground is essential to function. A healthy forward-thinking leadership, regardless of their faith or no faith whatsoever, should be able to find a common interest in the preservation of life and liberty for everyone.

LAWS FAVOR RELIGION

ElizaBeth Webb Beyer, rabbi, Temple Beth Or and N. Tahoe Hebrew Congregation

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ensures that one religion is not favored over other religions. However, atheism is not a religion. By definition, atheism is a lack of religion or religious thought. Thus, there is no legal requirement to ensure that atheists are provided with protection under the First Amendment.

As a Supreme Court justice who is a Catholic conservative, Justice Scalia rightfully notes that if this country wants a religion-free government, our laws would have to be changed. Our laws favor religion, not atheism. This reflects the values of the majority of our country, which was founded upon the ideal of religious freedom. Our laws give little consideration to the wishes of atheists. Those who wish to pray or ask for G-d’s blessings during a speech are legally permitted to do so. Those who choose to ignore G-d, G-d forbid, do so at their own peril.

POSITIVE ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT

Stephen R. Karcher, St. Anthony Greek Orthodox Church presiding priest

It’s natural for good governments to look after their citizenry by ensuring freedoms and taking care to limit antisocial behaviors and groups. This requires active involvement, not neutrality. For instance, governments usually aren’t neutral when it comes to business, education or medicine. Good governments are pro-business in order to benefit all of society. They’re pro-education and pro-medicine because good governments care to create beneficial opportunities for their citizens. Such active involvement is necessary because managing a city, state or nation the right way can never be a passive activity. It’s the same when it comes to ensuring the freedom and encouraging the good work of our faith communities. Good governments will recognize this and be pro-religion because supporting and encouraging the valuable work that takes place among people of faith is action that truly "promotes the general welfare." Ignoring religion is not the answer, but promoting good religion is.

SEPARATE RELIGION AND POLITICS

Bradley S. Corbin, Baha’i teacher

Baha’is believe that there need be a clear distinction between politics and religion. “Religion is concerned with things of the spirit, politics with things of the world. Religion has to work with the world of thought, whilst the field of politics lies with the world of external conditions” (Abdu’l-Baha). In a talk in Paris in 1911 Abdu’l-Baha spoke about the contrast between political and spiritual activity in a new way – by focusing on love. In this talk he elaborates on finding a way to spread love to all of humanity. That perfect love needs an unselfish instrument absolutely freed from fetters of every kind, and this can only be achieved by the power of the Divine Spirit. No worldly power can accomplish this universal love and unity. The worldly power of governments is best left to address civil concerns, as by the very nature of politics, divisions are created.

NEUTRALITY NOT POSSIBLE

Steve Bond, senior pastor of Summit Christian Church, Sparks

Religious convictions provide a worldview for its followers. For example, I am a Christ follower and my love for Jesus informs every decision I make. My worldview is permeated by my convictions about Jesus. The worldview for those who follow other religions is also permeated by their religious convictions.

As a result, governments cannot be neutral about religion. They never have been. This is because governments are not machines; instead, governments are comprised of people, many of whom hold religious convictions that shape their worldviews guiding the values they hold and the decisions they make.

Thus, it is false to suggest that governments can stay neutral about religion … unless, of course, you erase all religious worldviews from the public square. Sadly, this is happening in our nation. Increasingly in our public discourse there is tolerance for all kinds of novel worldviews — except those that include God and biblical values.

CONFUSIONS ABOUT NEUTRALITY

Kenneth G. Lucey, UNR philosophy/religion professor

There is no single answer to the question of how governments should behave towards religion because there are many different kinds of governments and religions. Iran, for example, is a theocracy whose supreme leader is the head of a Shia branch of Islam. Any citizen of Iran who suggests that his or her government should stay neutral towards religion might well get arrested. Western liberal democracies by contrast strive for religious and political freedoms. There is considerable confusion about the attitude of the Founding Fathers of the United States towards religion. Most of those who were religious were deists, not theists. Benjamin Franklin, for example, was a deist, but not a Christian. Their main concern was that there not be an official religion of the country, and in that regard they succeeded. Any American politician has the right to talk as much or as little about God or religion as he or she chooses.

THEY SHOULD

Sherif A. Elfass, Northern Nevada Muslim Community president

The United States of America is a great nation that protects the freedom to practice, or not to practice, any religion as it was intended by the Founding Fathers. Although religions can be source of tension and conflict, they bring hope and consolation to the majority of their followers. However, when the practice of religion is forced on people, it fosters hate and animosity. Thus, the government should remain neutral when it comes to religion. For example, it should allow atheists to decline saying “under God” when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Meanwhile, neutrality does not mean that presidents cannot invoke God in their speeches. It is their personal beliefs and as long as they are not enforcing it on others, it is perfectly acceptable. We are human beings and whether we like it or not, God affects the behavior of the believers among us. There can never be true separation.

NOT SO MUCH THE STATE BUT US?

Robert W. Chorey, Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno curia moderator

I think we would all hope that the state would protect the rights of all of its citizens in practicing or not practicing a religion. Thus, be neutral. How this is done is difficult. I simply do not have the expertise to answer it.

But more than this, I feel that we need not rely on the state, but turn to ourselves to be respectful towards each other, regardless whether someone is religious or not. We need to see beyond our individualism (and ego), and see ourselves part of a society, a fabric, a seamless garment. We are woven together, and with respect and dialogue, we can form something that is truly beautiful.

Yes, we have differences, and some are profound. Yet can we not communicate our differences and similarities; voice what we feel is essential and morally good; and build upon that?

MAKE SOMEONE HAPPY

Guest panelist Jeremy McNeil, national president, Catholic Professional and Business Clubs

According to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, the duty of government is to establish the best opportunity for citizens to obtain happiness. Happiness, he says, is the realization and perfect exercise of virtue. The best state, then, provides those things necessary for its citizens to achieve perfect virtue.

Some examples of virtue to encourage are generosity, justice, temperance, courage, and prudence. Aristotle concludes, however, that the virtue which gains the greatest happiness is contemplation of the highest questions. Questions about our origin, our place in creation, and our eternal destination ultimately find their answer in God, the First and Final Cause. For this reason, St. Thomas Aquinas calls religion, which is directly and immediately ordered to the honor of God, the preeminent moral virtue.

Therefore, for the good of the whole state, and the happiness of its citizens, government should positively promote the practice of religion and safeguard religious liberty.

Next week’s topic:

Can “mercy” solve all the humanity’s problems?

Faith Forum is a weekly dialogue on religion coordinated by religious statesman Rajan Zed. Send questions or comments to rajanzed@gmail.com.