Indiana Constitution: Article I, Section 4:
No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent.
In 1893, the Indiana Supreme Court declared characterized the separation of church and state as “the crowning glory of civil government among men. The Court noted the separation in the U.S. Constitution and in most states, but said that it was especially true under the Indiana Constitution that:
The law has known no religious creed, no religious opinion, no religious doctrine, no standard of belief in matters pertaining to religion. Our state constitution, framed by wise men, and adopted by the people, has still more securely placed us out of the reach of those fierce and bloody struggles arising out of a difference in religious opinion in former times by declaring that “all men shall be secured in their natural right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,†and that “no law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience;†and that “no preference shall be given by law to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent.†And that “no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of trust or profit.†These provisions of the fundamental law not only take away all power of the state to interfere with religious belief, but they leave the citizen perfectly free to repudiate the faith and belief he once professed and adhered to, and adopt a new creed and faith, differing from that of the church to which he belonged; or he may repudiate his old belief and faith without adopting any new one; and these changes he may adopt as often as to him may seem proper, and the law will protect him in it. In other words, the law allows every one to believe as he pleases, and practice that belief so long as that practice does not interfere with the equal rights of others.
Smith v. Pedigo, 33 N.E. 777, 778-779 (Ind. 1893).
From time to time, you will hear proponents of intertwining government and religion complain that there was no intent by the Founders of the federal government to separate church and state. I believe that they did so intend. But, putting that aside for a moment, the text of the Indiana Constitution seems to provide much clearer textual support than the federal Constitution for the proposition that government simply has no business dealing in religious matters.
Maybe I’m just misremembering, but I can’t recall any discussion of this provision when the matter of Speaker Bosma’s sectarian prayers as official business of the Indiana House of Representatives was being argued and decided. The taxpayers of Indiana have apparently spent $350,000 to assist the House of Representatives to maintain the right to conduct sectarian prayer in its chambers. I know that rights have a way of getting watered down as the courts consider them, but still it sure feels like I’m being asked to support a ministry when tax dollars are being spent to provide a forum for a minister to sing “Just a Little Talk with Jesus.”
The Republicans in the Indiana House now ostentatiously have a “prayer caucus” before each session. Didn’t Jesus say something or another about praying in private or making a big deal of public prayers?
Matthew 6:5-7.
Apparently Paul had different ideas than Jesus, however:
1 Timothy 2:8.
Jesus was the better moral philosopher. Paul was the better salesman.
We were reminded here by someone’s posting on Masson’s blog several months ago that catholicism was seen as a threat last century and many states enacted laws to protect us from a ‘catholic takeover’.Now it’s not only Protestant conservatives who are assuming they are our state religion,local governments now must discuss and vote if they should build public footbaths for pre-prayer Islamic footwashing.Hopefully,more and more Americans will see a need for separation of church and state,and we will draw a definitive line.
Uh… anyone else see the irony in the following?
“…by declaring that ‘all men shall be secured in their natural right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.'”
Re: the Catholics – a kind reader was good enough to draw my attention to a national movement to impose “Blaine Amendments” after an amendment introduced by James G. Blaine failed to get the necessary 2/3s vote in 1875. The introduced amendment was as follows:
The original amendments were introduced to prevent a feared Roman Catholic takeover of the American educational apparatus. There is some irony in that, more recently, its been followers of Protestant faiths who have typically wanted to repeal the Blaine Amendments, often in the context of school voucher efforts.
Brenda, is the irony you’re talking about the irony of Constitutions and natural rights apparently being seen as somehow above Almighty God? (Since, presumably Almighty God can take care of himself.)
I think what Brenda was saying is that there is an assumption that a person will worship God, but the state can’t say how.
One of the key things that gets screwed up in these conversations about church and state by both sides is the fact that there is no provision for atheism.
It seems everyone that wrote these founding documents made the key assumption that everyone would worship SOME god (and many could argue that they mean the Christian God by the use of “Almighty God” – specific rather than lowercase “god”).
Do these documents protect atheism? I don’t think so, by their wording. However, I think they should and do by their intent.
However, I also feel strongly that atheism shouldn’t be the offical religion of the government, either. There have been many cases where the government has established atheism by the laws that have been passed.
It is hard to get a balance. For example, I think preventing prayer in schools establishes atheism. However, requiring prayer in schools establishes whatever religion the prayer is in.
We don’t have to be 100% to either side.
I don’t think that keeping state sponsored prayer out of the public schools “establishes atheism.” (I’m unaware of any cases where a school has knocked a student around for praying at his locker before a test, for example; — or refusing to hire a teacher because he or she goes to church.)
The lack of state sponsored prayer in school is simply a recognition that religion is not a government function.
Just to take an extreme – I don’t think prohibiting masturbation or sex acts in school is anything like a state prohibition on sexuality. It’s just a recognition that it’s an activity for a different time and place.
With both religion and sex, the school can provide instruction on the topics, you just can’t actively engage in either as official parts of school business.
I know that my daughter’s middle school doesn’t hide the fact that they start each day with a “moment of silence.” What kids do during that time is up to them–they can pray, they can pick their nose if they want to. I’m okay with that. The problem is when a teacher or other authority-type figure says, hey, we’re going to pray now, & if you’re a kid you can either join in or feel like an outcast dork & not join in…
As long as there are tests in school, there will be prayer in school!
The fear with Catholiciam in America had to do with the way that the “Church” (especially the Pope and Cardinals) meddled in the governmental affairs in Europe. My fear is that socially conservative Protestants are the “new church” in America.
I agree Glenn. However, currently the DoE prevents any school staff from joining into a religious activity that is started by the student.
For example, a member of the football team starts a prayer before a game, and some of the team joins him. However, the coach can not. I think that is not right.
I believe that the Founding Fathers intended to demarcate a separation between Church (capitalization intended) and State. I do not for a moment believe that they intended any separation between religion (no capitalization intended) and State.
Offhand, I believe that many of the Founding Fathers would actually be appalled by the extremes to which the separation of religion and State have been pursued.
I agree with Rev. AJB that certain politically activist segments of the Christian Right are verging on crossing the line into Church status. This is what the Founding Fathers really wanted to guard against.
Jason,
I wanted to comment on your comment that there is no provision in the Constitution for atheists.Doesn’t it depend on what ‘worship’ means? Contemplating the unknown is a kind of worship ,isn’t it? One can celebrate Mass at the kitchen table with one other person.. Or a person alone can just sit and ponder the mysticism of it all,perhaps using candles, a rosary or whatever focuses attention( my own perspective is catholicism,but there are countless others).
And let me put in a good word for the avowed atheists among us.. Religious people tend to define atheism very liberally.Our government has never been atheist,ever,and when has it ever promoted atheism? A true, avowed atheist understands religious perspective or he couldn’t reject it intellectually.A religious person and an atheist can have fascinating discussions and give insights to each other without all the emotionalism of religious doctrine. Also an atheist and a devout person can work side by side helping people,or doing a job, with one goal ..But think what a burden being an atheist is…he decides to help his fellow man of his own free will,and does good deeds without a reward in Heaven waiting. You’ve really got to like people to be able do that!
Our Constitution is a marvelous document and it does protect every one.But it’s up to the judiciary and the legal system to make justice happen. Who else can interpret our Constitution legally except people of law? Religion or atheism is irrelevant to the legal process; personal doctrine is our free choice.