Focus 580; Free Thinkers: A History of American Secularism

In this hour of the show we'll be talking about the history of American secularism. And our guest for the program is Susan Jacoby. We will be talking about her book freethinkers a book that was first published about a year ago came out in hardcover in April of 2000 and for and at the beginning of this year was published in paperback it's published by owl books which is a division I believe of Holt Henry Holt and company so if you're interested in reading the book you can head out there and you can find it. We'll be talking a little bit about what she argues are some of the often neglected accomplishments of secularists who have been involved in struggling for reform all the way back to early America and of course into the last century. The book looks at some people that are well known certainly they're well-known names like Jefferson and Madison and Abraham Lincoln as well as people who have been to us now today largely forgotten and one that I had mentioned here a couple of times this morning is Robert Green Ingersoll a man who was said to be the most famous orator in 19th century America. As I say the book is out now in bookstores

if you want to take a look at it. Let me tell you just a little bit more about our guest Susan Jacoby. She began her writing career as a reporter for The Washington Post. She is the author of five books including one titled Wild Justice which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. She's also contributed to different publications including The New York Times The Washington Post the nation Tom Paine dot com and the AARP Bulletin. And she is also director of the Center for Inquiry metro New York and makes her home in New York City and she is joining us this morning by telephone as we talk. Questions are certainly welcome all we ask again is occasionally like to remind people we just ask callers to try to be brief and we ask that so that we can keep the bro Graham moving getting as many different people as possible. But of course anybody listening is welcome to join us here in Champaign Urbana. The number to call 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line that means it would be a long distance call for you. Use that number and we'll pay for the call that is eight hundred to 2 2

9 4 5 5 3 3 3 WRAL toll free 800 1:58 wy a lot of those are the numbers. Miss Jacoby Hello. Yes hello. Well thanks for talking with us. Yes it's good that you mention Ingersoll you know since he's an Illinois man and there's a very nice statue of him in Peoria in fact Oh indeed Well that's I guess that's often I think the one of the things that a book like this can do is not only will it remind you of people that you already know about but it brings back at least reintroduces people that at one time were very significant individuals and yet now who knows about them. Right. Well unfortunately. I mean one of the things that's happened with the secular history of America is a lot of it's been forgotten and downgraded Ingersoll is really a very important man he was known as the great ignát stick in the 19th century. He was he was a lieutenant governor of Illinois

by the way and his political career ended because basic. Because of his anti clerical anti religious views so he was also a very famous lawyer and he devoted his life to speaking around the country this is in the time the last quarter of the 19th century when when Darwin's theory of evolution is first introduced and becoming popularized he spoke to Mark people than any American president. He was very famous. He yeah he did many things he was a he was a man of very great principle he went when the Haymarket Square defendants were sentenced to death in Illinois in Chicago Ingersoll was asked to defend them at the trial and he declined because he felt that that his well-known agnosticism would work against the defendants in a jury. So he has a very significant figure it's an absolute crime that he's not included in standard history textbooks. Well he apparently as a speaker was in was extremely popular very

great demand. He for the Times was paid very significant amount of money just for it for making one speech. Again I'm not saying that made the right wing clergy very angry but that he did that not only not only did he speak to thousands and thousands of people at a time. When he spoke when he spoke at the at the Republican National Convention in 1876 people people lined up in a driving rainstorm in the loop to hear him. The Chicago Tribune reported that there were at least three thousand people standing outside. But it's very significant I mean Ingersoll's thing was separation of church and state. Also also what he called the bright light of science but unlike today people vote people people who went to his lectures didn't necessarily agree with them what they were willing to do which seems to be so lost in our society today is to give a hearing to someone they didn't agree with. Also of course lectures public lectures were front of popular

entertainment in the pre-television pre radio pre-movie era. Yeah. So he obviously you he was extremely popular as you say. People would line up to harm those hated speak but also hate it and I guess that's what I'm I'm wondering if you know on balance was he was he more or was he more hated than he was he loved or was he just generally generally speaking where his ideas were received and the number of people who would like to show up and throw things would have been a smaller number. The number of people who want to show up and throw things was large and certainly certainly the fact that he was an avowed agnostic made it impossible for him to have the major political career which is when he died in 1899. The New York Times said this that his his anti-clerical agnostic views denied him the major political career to which his talents would otherwise have richly entitled him. But we don't have anybody like him in public life today the fact is is this man was willing

to speak with two people honestly. He didn't go around pretending to be religious when he wanted to because he wanted to be president or we wanted higher office. He spoke honestly and I think Ingersoll's influence was certainly certainly the majority of Americans did not agree with his anti-religious views but what he was was a voice for rationalism I think for instance he had many friends in the liberal Protestant clergy of its day. And one of the things he was influential in was getting a hearing for things for example for people who then is now believe that it was possible to believe in God and still believe in the scientific validity of evolution and his influence was great not in persuading people to his ignorance. The view is but in persuading people of liberal and moderate religious beliefs to a larger view of the world that admitted science and also also insistence on the separation of church and state as being a benefit to both religion and government.

We'll continue our conversation with Susan Jacoby here in just a moment I'd like to pass on to people a news bulletin that has just come across our AP news wires Unfortunately there's not a lot of detail at the moment but A.P. is reporting that the White House and the U.S. Capitol building are being evacuated this morning. Military planes have been seen flying overhead reporters at the White House we're told to move to a more secure location. President Bush was not at the White House at the time at the Capitol security officers shouted to staff and reporters to quote leave run a guard in the West Wing of the White House shouted at reporters go down into the basement. That is all we have on this right at the moment. If there is more information and I got the wire here up on a computer in front of me as soon as there is anything more we will pass it on to you but again the Associated Press reporting this morning that the White House and the Capitol building are being evacuated. And again I should mention our guest for this part of focus 580 is Susan Jacoby She is author of the book freethinkers a history of American secularism book that was first

published last year at the beginning of this year came out in paperback so if you're interested you can head out to the bookstore and look at it's published by our will. And that is a division of Henry. Holt and Company this is. Maybe you can talk a little bit about how over the sweep of American history this kind of this kind of battle between between secularists between free thinkers and between people who who make this argument that that religion and one religion in particular Christianity is sort of a bedrock foundation of America. How that over time has Has that always been with us battle battle is maybe too strong a word. There has always been a tension between secularism and religion in America and it at the founding of our country. It was a very

creative tension because. Because America was of course American people in the era in which our Constitution was written We're not only largely Christian but they were Protestant Christians. And yet because they lived in a time the framers of the Constitution in which the worst horrors of union between church and state which we've forgotten today were so close to them. My heavens would at the time the Constitution was written and all of the founders who were all educated men knew this. The last execution public execution for blasphemy in France had only taken place 10 years earlier. So these people lived in an era in which in which the the disadvantages of Union of church and state not only for government but for religion as well it's important to realize that the founders also saw a separation of church and state not only as the way to guarantee government freedom from religious interference but to guarantee religious freedom from

government interference. There were equally important. Shortened what we have with the religious right. Today is a denial that there was any interest in protecting government from religion. And that's one of the great lies of the religious right today. The founders were interested both in protecting religion from government and protecting government from religion because they live in a world in which too much religious involvement with government had done nothing but bad things for people. Well just again and forgive me for interrupting our conversation but we have had a little bit of updated information on the story that I just mentioned a couple of minutes ago about the fact that the Associated Press was reporting that the White House in the Capitol building were being evacuated now a homeland security official has said that it appeared that a small airplane might have penetrated restricted airspace and in fact the most recent is that indeed these evacuations were caused by an unidentified plane in the airspace around the Capitol that there was at least at this point certainly there was no indication that this was a terrorist attack or attack of any kind so again

that's the information we have right now at the moment. That earlier the White House in the Capitol building were evacuated and apparently it was because a small unidentified plane got into the Capitol airspace and that's what we have all right it's not the first time that's happened by the way. Well I'm sure that it's not I don't recall. This happening anytime recently but maybe it's just as a sort of skin I have not read it's only in the first year there was there was one of back to a shot of the Capitol with a similar thing. What's quite ironic is I'm looking I'm looking on my internet news which is also featuring a statement by Tom Ridge yesterday that there that there are too many terror alerts. Well maybe that this when it it cut it it gets our attention because the press corps was evacuated and you know the outcry that that'll get us to where our fellow reporters where in danger then that we're going to sit up and take notice. Right. Getting back to to this subject of the founders and their attitudes toward religion and what sort of connection and what sort of role should have in public

life and should it be connected to government I think particularly within the last you know maybe couple of decades I don't know. It's been something that there's been a lot of certainly debate and discussion about here in the United States and it seems that that both sides have their have their favorite quotes and you can engage in sort of dueling quotes about who said what when and that either proves or disproves that one individual or no another individual either they were a person of faith or they were a person of faith or that they thought religion should have a place in public life or that it shouldn't. It's good for someone who tries at least to take them. Position of a somewhat dispassionate observer it gets to be sort of difficult to sort out competing claims about just what was what particularly when we're talking about events that occurred at this distance. Is it really possible do you think and maybe you do that to to say with some clarity what exactly exactly the attitude of Jefferson and Madison and the people of the of the founders generation were

toward religion and particularly this issue of what sort of place should religion have been in public life and what should the relation between ship between be between government and religion. I'm glad you raised that because it is possible. It is not possible to sort out all of the founders personal religious beliefs. Because they wrote so much it's exactly like competing arguments over who is the real Jesus in the Bible. The Jesus who said Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God. Or the Jesus who said I am come not to bring peace but a sword. The founders writings were so voluminous. They're like the Bible. What is clear is that in terms of their personal religious views the framers of the Constitution range from people who were very close to be Stix or deists who believed in some kind of God who set the universe in motion. But man human reason to be the instrument for understanding the world.

To people who Jefferson for instance we know he didn't believe that Jesus was God he wrote a whole book saying so you believe Jesus was a very good man. But what I always say to people is it is not possible to know exactly what the major founders precise religious beliefs were. But it is possible to know and what we do know is they did not believe in writing those religious beliefs into government. They believed in absolute separation of church and state. How do we know this. They didn't mention God in the constitution which was our it was the first government in the world founded upon the separation of church and state. And the fact that they didn't mention God which all of the religious right conveniently forget today was fully debated at the time the ratification of the Constitution was debated. There were many conservative religious people of that day who were furious that the Constitution that the preamble of the Constitution didn't mention God and predicted that the whole American government would fall

apart because of it. They lost that battle the religious right did and they've never gotten over it and now they're trying to rewrite history. This does not say anything about what George Washington personally felt about his relation to God or Thomas Jefferson. What we know what's important for us to realize today is that they thought that whatever their religious beliefs whatever the religious beliefs of Americans were that it was best to. Keep religion out of government and this is not to say by the way and I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with people in or out of government talking about their religious values as an important way to frame their views on policy. What is wrong is when religion is used as a justification for Public Policy. In other words it's fine. I have no problem at all with George W. Bush talking about the importance of his faith to him. The problem I have is when he wants to impose his personal religious beliefs

on government policy it is it no it seems to be an increasingly frequent complaint by people by conservative people who identify themselves as conservative people and people of faith. And certainly there are liberal people and. Who are people of faith you know want to make sure that it's not just sort of one sad thing and they're becoming more and more outspoken. Do that can you know conservative people of faith feel that they are somehow being discriminated against and that they're they feel that they are they're being told that somehow they have no place in politics do you. Do you think in fact that that is happening. That makes me laugh. Well let me ask you something. Could an avowed atheist or a good egg Gnostic possibly be nominated for the presidency of the United States. You know I think I think it highly unlikely highly unlikely. It's never going to happen in my lifetime in my lifetime. We will see a Muslim half Muslim half Jewish woman nominated for the

presidency. Before we ever see anyone who's an atheist or agnostic our politicians today are almost sickening in the implication that their personal relationship with God is the reason that one ought to approve of their policies. The idea that religious people are under represented in Washington who is running Washington right now but religious people and I should say religious either religious people of a certain kind. Of course anybody who is religious in every way has every right to be represented in the government. But the idea that they are being discriminated against when in fact belief in God and parading your faith on your sleeve is almost a litmus test for high public office is absolutely ridiculous. What they mean when they said they're discriminated against is because of our Constitution. They still haven't been entirely successful in getting their religious views written into laws as we saw after the Terri Shiloh case. It's the Terri Schiavo

case demonstrates that a lot of Americans still have a healthy respect for the separation of church and state and they were very offended at Congress trying to intrude itself into that case. And who is behind that. The the members of Congress who represent the fundamentalist religious right. Well not atheists. We're going to hear from some people here from home but we have some callers and we'll get right to them then. Let me just. Again mentioned very quickly that our guest this morning is Susan Jacoby. She is the author of six previous books including one titled wild justice that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize her most recent is entitled freethinkers the subtitle is A History of American secularism. It was first published last year and then at the beginning of this year in paperback so the book is out there available if you're interested in looking at it. Questions here welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 2 2 2 9 4 5 5. Or go here to Bloomington Indiana for first color line number for L.

A couple of comments. The Constitution does mention God. The very last words of the Constitution are in the Year of Our Lord 1789. I don't want what that Mord be. In the Year of Our Lord 1789 it was the way that in the Year of Our Lord was the way official documents are dated just as I. When I refer to dates I use a D which is you know means Anno Domini after our Lord and B.C. Before Christ. This does not mean that I believe that Jesus Christ was God and dating a document in the year of our Lord which is the only thing the religious right has to to prop up this argument had absolutely no meaning except it was the conventional way that things were dated that had meaning they didn't say I know Domini if they wrote out in the Year of Our Lord that was the way important documents were dated it has no more meaning than my saying a D or B C.

You talked about the separation of church and state being partially to protect government from religion. Yes as I read the bill of rights it says Congress one of the one of the bill the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. So so the First Amendment is to protect religion from. Government not to protect government from religion. That's right. Yeah you're absolutely right and you make a very good point. The First Amendment was designed almost entirely to protect religion from government. The Constitution itself was designed to protect government from religion by specifically prohibiting any religious test for public office by not mentioning Divine on already is the basis of the American government and also very important so concerned were they that there not be a religious test for public office but they specifically said Article 3 Section 6 Article 6 Section 3 that one might swear or affirm to take federal

office where it was understood to be swearing on the Bible in the 18th century. They put the word affirm in as an alternative for those who didn't want to swear on the Bible. You're absolutely right the first amendment is designed to protect religion from government the Constitution itself was concerned with protecting government from religion. They go together in the minds of the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If there was to be no religious test how is it that when some of our Supreme Court nominees appeals court nominees President Bush's court nominees are rejected by the how shall we say secularists. The reason given is that there are deep personal beliefs. That's the reason they're given for being rude for being how shall we say political extremists excuse. Excuse me sir. The reason is that given their deep personal beliefs the reason is that they want to write their deep religious beliefs into law in a way that

violates the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do. Well as you know as we as you know we don't have courts full of atheists judges. All of our judges as far as I know are Catholics Protestant or Jews. But but but what the religious right once is judges who have no respect for the separation of church and state. One more comment James Madison he was the chief architect of our constitution that was to be religion was to have no effect on government. Here's here's what Madison says as the chief architect of our Constitution quote. Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society he must be considered as a subject of the governor of the universe. Religion is the basis and foundation of government. Here's another thing that matters. That James Madison said. The chief architect of our Constitution we have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government. Far from it. We have staked the future of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and every

of us each and all of us to govern ourselves to control ourselves and sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. Yes and it is. This is exactly the reason why you can't talk about the founders religious beliefs from selective quotes. When I say that is the fact is James Madison was the chief architect both not only of our Constitution but of the Berlin Your Virginia Religious Freedom Act which was the template for our constitution in which he took on people who wanted to support religious schools in Virginia and wrote the first state constitution that separated church and state. Our founders personal religious believes have to be also be viewed in terms of our government in terms of the government they set up and Madison was the architect of a government that separates church and state. Well I'm going to I'm going to choose to move. Expect the caller might like to continue. This is what I was talking about earlier when I said out of bounds right.

We get so much into we get into dueling quotations and I guess I'm not sure. That's why you have the dueling protests and that's what I was saying. Madison absolutely did write this it was a correct quote. There were points where Jefferson also wrote similar things and other points where he wrote other things which is what I say all I need concern is today in terms of our government is the constitution they wrote and the government they set up. Well we go on here to another caller and this is someone listening this morning in Eureka. So this is line number one. Hello. Good morning David an excellent program comment and two questions please. I want to thank your guest for her most eloquent defense of the so-called persons who are allegedly being discriminated against I haven't heard that put so well as I think the ruling class in Washington D.C. is. The questions would be at the top of your program I was listing and then I had to go do something. You mention the name Robert Ingersoll of Peoria which is close to where I live. I wonder if you could

comment on him and I as I understood it he was a great influence of his day. And secondly I think he touched on it but it seemed to me that Jefferson Frankland a majority of the founding fathers would have fit into a category I guess described as D.S. where they believed maybe in a in a God who created things but was sort of a bit impersonal or had kind of a. Faded from the scene could she comment on those two questions please. I'll take the second first because you did how dare you have left the radio for even a moment. Yes I'm sorry I missed my speech on Ingersoll but I'll take the first one as as best most scholars of Jefferson and Madison believe that they did fall into the category of Deists were not atheists. They basically believed in a what they called a watchmaker God who set the universe in motion but who then stepped out of the picture. In other in other words left us left to figure

things out with our own human reason. In other words they believe in a first cause. It's also very evident that language Washington for example very rarely used the word God it almost always said Providence which was the Deist word for God so certainly Deism was was very much a belief and by the way John Adams also in his correspondence with Jefferson you can see also that he was. He was also very close to Deism although he's not always classified with the others in fact is views on separation of church and state although they had many political disagreements were exactly like Jefferson's as one sees from their correspondence. Ingersoll I could go on talking for hours and I won't do too much more because I did go over that earlier. Why don't one of the things that that I did mention about Robert Ingersoll was was that he he lost a major political career because he was an avowed agnostic. But there's nothing I can add for him yourself or people who were listening earlier. There's something else about him that's very important.

He was also very ahead of his time in saying and this is a question that comes up today all the time. I'm always asked how where do you get your morality or your ethics if you don't believe in religion. And Ingersoll was asked this a million times in the 19th century and he said where he got his morality was from his belief that we as human beings. Oh every other person the rights that we would like for ourselves. In other words what he was saying was is to be against murder or to be against all of the things that that any decent person is against. All you have to do is have respect for the humanity that you feel and one recognized in yourself. And he was he was also ahead of his time in other ways at a time when people thought beating up children was the right of every parent. One of the lectures he made around the country was lectures opposed to what would be called child abuse today. And what an appalling act misuse of parental power it was to beat up children. He was an opponent of the death penalty at a time when very few people did and

not an opponent of these things because he believed in God in the afterlife. But because he believed that the death penalty of course and us as human beings in the society if we had the government execute people. So one of Ingersoll's importance was is that he spoke to an issue which is very much with us today which is which is which is does morality have to derive only from religion. I mean what does it matter for instance the Ten Commandments probably should get against murder predated the Ten Commandments and they exist in every society because any rational human being knows that a society that allows people to go around killing killing one another is not a society to which we can live. May I ask one more follow up please. Sure. What office did in your full run the Senate in your in your song in your song with the lieutenant governor and and he ran for he met he was appointed Lieutenant governor he ran for lieutenant governor of Illinois and lost and he never ran for office again. By the time he ran and lost it was getting around that he was an agnostic. I see.

Thank you. So I don't think you're well other questions are certainly welcome questions comments are welcome. Number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line good anywhere that you can hear us and that is eight hundred to 2 2 9 4 5 5 If you're interested in reading more on the subject or finding out more about Robert Green Ingersoll you can look at the book. That we have talked about by our guest this morning Susan Jacoby. The book is titled Free Thinkers a history of American secularism was first published last year came out the beginning of this year in paperback published by al which is the vision of Henry Holt. Just let me again tell you a little bit more about our guest. She is an award winning independent scholar and writer she has authored seven books including one titled While Justice the evolution of revenge which was a nominee for the Pulitzer Prize. She started out her career as a reporter for The Washington Post and has contributed articles to a number of different publications including The New York Times the nation a p bulletin Newsday Tom Paine dot com she makes her home in New York

City where she is also involved in the Center for Inquiry and Metro. New York and again questions are welcome 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 toll free 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. Well given given the fact that maybe something like the Ten Commandments we we might argue aside from those things that specifically referred to judeo christian religious ideas. I mean if it's really grounded in a certain common sense way of dealing with other people that even secularists could agree to if then someone decides they want to put up a monument with the Ten Commandments on the front of the courthouse downtown. Is that something that we really should be all that worried about. Oh I think I think that we should we be worried any time because the Ten Commandments are specifically a part of Judeo-Christian tradition. If you put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse let's say or you require people to swear on the Bible which most people don't realize it's not a requirement it's just a

custom you're not required to do it to sit on a jury or anything like that. When we do those things we are we are saying that this church and our state are very very close together. And I've heard people say by the way that well what's the problem with it. Then we put up a copy of the Koran also and a copy of the various sayings of the Buddha and so on. Well well that takes up a lot of space. I mean we wouldn't have room for court rooms if we put all of the religious sanctions that are behind morality. And really the thing about the Ten Commandments monuments it's not about it's not about that if you don't have the Ten Commandments it somehow means that your courts are upholding morality. It is about the religious right for the people who are pushing all of the Ten Commandments cases wanting to assert their political power that's what it's about. Do I Do I really care if I stumble across a Ten Commandments monument in a park. No I do. But do I think that these things

belong to the do I think that crosses belong on the walls in public schools and no do I think that stars of David's blowing on the walls in public schools. No. Do I think that the crescent belongs on the walls of public schools. No because we are a country of the government founded on separation of church and state. These symbols these religious teachings beliefs that beliefs about their religious origins of morality they are to be taught by home and church as they have been for centuries as the framers of our Constitution and intended. And one of the things that really puzzles me about the religious right's determination in these matters is why. Why do they think that the influence of their home and their church is so weak that they need to have these things in public spaces. I mean I mean I'm sure I was brought up as a Catholic and I'm sure that might be it never occurred to my parents that when we when we went to public school because the Catholic schools were deficient in science education. I'm sure it

never occurred to them that it was the function of the public school to continue to teach me religion. It was their function it was the function of the church we went to. Take another call or someone on the cell phone on our line for toll free line. Hello. Hi I hope this question hasn't been asked I've been listening intermittently. I just want her idea on the current administration's efforts to test the Supreme Court and what that's going to mean for a teacher of our country to have a right wing. It is on the court. Well actually we do have lots of right wing conservatives on the court now. The majority of the federal judiciary has been appointed by Republican presidents during the past 20 years. But this this battle over the judges I think it's I think it's extremely important and I only read the same newspaper stories that you all read I don't know how the votes are going to come out. But one thing that's very important about

this is it's not about conservative judges. And fact let's I'm giving a kind of long answer to your question. But the Terri Chavo case is very important on this. When Congress tried to turn this issue over to the federal courts they clearly thought the right wing conservative religious conservative. Thought that because so many of the judges on the Supreme Court and in the federal appeals court that heard this case had been appointed by Republican administrations and in fact judges who were noted for conservatism they thought they were just going to roll over and decide the way the religious right members of Congress wanted them to decide when they didn't when they said oh no this is not a proper role for a court the lower courts have heard all the evidence. Then suddenly the religious right becomes enraged because those judges conservative judges appointed by conservative Republican presidents didn't go along with their idea of rubber stamping on the shive a case with their religious views. What these people want

is not just conservative judges. In fact it's only about one tenth of President Bush's appointments that have been held up by Democrats. They want judges who represent their extreme religious conservatism as well. Their attacks on Justice Anthony Kennedy for example who is a Catholic member of the Supreme Court. But because he hasn't gone along with their views on anti-sodomy laws and so on are absolutely disgraceful. What they what they want is not just religious judges but judges who believe in their brand of religion. And it's not a matter of political conservatism. Justice Kennedy is in fact quite a politically conservative judge himself appointed by a Republican president but he doesn't go along with the far religious right so let's make no mistake about it we're not talking about conservative judges. We're talking about fundamentalist right wing religious judges right. Thank you. Let's go to another caller here and wind one Urbana.

Oh that would be me. Yes indeed. Just one question for you. The question of of school children and the like predominately high school children being able to wear crosses Stars of David and expressing their religious beliefs on a T-shirt and not being allowed to do that in the high schools and sort of. And that would be it actually. What I'd like. Why do you think that school children aren't being allowed to wear crosses in high schools. I have no idea. OK they are. You know what you may have confused is something very important. Children are perfectly free to wear crosses and religious symbols. Teachers however are not free to stand up in religious garb and talk. In other words a teacher a teacher can wear a cross but a teacher can't for example put a cross on a blackboard but that's a different thing. But the Constitution guarantees all of us students and non-students

alike the right to wear any religious symbols we want. Well then you may be thinking of and I'm glad you really asked this question Is the dispute in France over over Muslim students wearing Muslim headscarves which the government has prohibited in France now such a prohibition in America would be absolutely an unconstitutional interference with freedom of religion. And here is here is a great proof of the genius of the framers of our Constitution. The reason that we could never have a law prohibiting students from wearing crosses or Muslim head scarves or Stars of David or whatever religious symbol they won is because our constitution does guarantee separation of church and state. The reason the French are so concerned about this is although France is a much more secular country in terms of people's religious views than the United States is. It also has a very long tradition of fear of what religious involvement in the state can do based on their own history in which

the Catholic Church until a French revolution ran the state and persecuted Protestants and so on. I remember I mentioned that the last execution for blasphemy in France took place only 10 years before the American Revolution. And so that so that in France because they don't have a strict constitutional separation of church and state they can have a law like this preventing the wearing of headscarves whereas here it's our constitutional separation of church and state which says the government could never tell a student not to wear a cross or a religious symbol. I guess my point was actually T-shirts and thing like saying that God is love and like a champ unfairly I know the school systems that they fit from and they frown on other kinds of T-shirts to defend it. I think that the I think the T-shirt issue is a whole different thing I know a lot of schools where all T-shirts with messages on them are banned because some of the messages are

let us say not not not you know you could repeat them on a radio program. I think a lot of schools banned T-shirts altogether. It would be completely unconstitutional to ban the wearing of crosses and Stars of David. And I'm sure that they don't do that. Inge in Champaign County. Thank you. A banner on a T-shirt saying for the crowd kind of asked for that I think they ought to put kids back in ties and jackets and shirts. Well I guess though that this is sort of getting us off into a side issue but I guess I would think that it would be. To say that a student could not wear a T-shirt that said I love Jesus. It seems to me that would be clearly unconstitutional and that you might actually if they wanted to wear a T-shirt that said I love Hitler. I'm kind of thinking isn't that also a violation of the First Amendment to say you you can't do that. You know this this is getting off a little tension and I don't know what the exact policy is in Champagne County. If you only ban T-shirts saying I love Jesus it would clearly be unconstitutional on a lot of ground. But a lot of schools just

ban the wearing of all T-shirts with messages on grounds of school discipline. And actually the whole question of student's free speech rights so that's what we're not talking about freedom of religion really about free speech in terms of keeping order in the schools whereas you or I could walk down the street and wear a T-shirt saying I love Hitler. If you're. It's a well accepted principle of law that minor children in schools do not have all of the same free speech rights that we all do in society at large when we're over 18 years old. I mean personally if I were a school principal in high school I would ban the wearing of all t shirts with messages on them for just the reason that you suggested. But you can't you can't have people going around with a T-shirt saying I love Hitler in schools or I Hate Blacks for instance. Which is also an issue that's come up in schools so a lot of schools you know feeling the flashpoint of these things for four adolescents who let's say whose emotions are not exactly under good adult control have just banned the wearing of

all T-shirts with messages. I bet if you look into it you'll find that champagne County does not ban T-shirts with one kind of messages it just says you can't wear message t shirts period as you as as I said you said that's a that's another show. Right right. That's another show entirely. We have some other callers that let's go to line number two next in Champaign. Yes. I just want to say this is a comment not a question. Go girl go. You are on message. Thanks very much of the Central. Father I'm sure not everyone would think that. Having a number of people would certainly want to be well. It would just go to the next caller and that would be champagne in line 3. HELLO of ads as Rush Limbaugh's callers would say did of two of the last caller. Could you please give your views on

the refusal of the neo con administration to federally fund stem cell research on stem cell research is a perfect example of the imposition of particular religious beliefs on public policy. Now we have people people in America who sincerely that are opposed to embryonic stem cell research because they regard it as a form of abortion and they believe that abortion is morally wrong and they certainly have the right to that view. But as as as extensive public opinion surveys have shown most people are in favor the majority of Americans of all religions are in favor of stem cell research. They want this explored they do not regard for 45 day embryos in the test tube embryos which are going to be thrown out which are just going to waste as as the equivalent of human beings and they do not regard it as a form of abortion but in fact

President Bush made a decision that that we are really comical decision actually from one point of view in which he tried to compromise and said Well stem cells that were in existence in the fertility clinics before August 9th 2001 when he announced the sacred decision you can use for research but no new embryos afterwards another kind of a very a very hair splitting decision and what we've seen is states revolting I believe also Illinois is considering funding stem cell research itself to most famously California in the last election authorized three billion dollars of tax money over the next 10 years for stem cell research. People don't agree with that but in fact it's a great example of a particular religious doctrine and I don't have any lack of respect for that religious doctor but their President Bush's decision was based on his religious views and also the views of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Also not shared by the majority of American

Catholics say you can't conduct this research because my religion is opposed to it. Yeah I think it overall is decisions based on religion. That's probably the most detrimental in my view of all of them. And. KM a blast chillers are certainly not assessed step up at last if that's what they're called. Thanks a lot you make the point. I think Mr. Cohen that throughout American history that that secularists have been very important in reform movements various various times. I think some people might be prepared to argue though that religious people have also been very important for movements for example the movement against slavery and war and the civil rights movement. It's religious people have been I never said that secularist were the most important in those movements I said their importance has been understated.

Secularists in the civil rights movement for instance to use it were recent example combined with people of religious faith most notably the black churches of the South to establish a mal consensus and here is my point simply the laws banning racial segregation the attack on segregation led by the Black Church of the South and joined in by both secular and liberal religious people. Our example of the fact that when you put moral values into public policy you have to achieve a consensus that runs counter to some religion and and transcends religions in a way. There are many right wing religious people at the time who were completely opposed to the civil rights movement. And the reason civil rights ultimately won out was the achievement of a moral consensus that could be. Supported by people of many religions or no religion and the proper place for religion and social movements is exactly in the way the civil rights movement

which was not a government movement the civil rights movement wound up affecting the government with things that we could all agree on whatever our religious beliefs. But and here's a thought of all these people who want faith based money for churches. How free would the black churches of the South have been to lead the civil rights movement if they had been on a government dole at that time. There's the heart of the matter about why union of church and state is bad for religion as well as government. They were free to press their moral views within society and to offer their moral views as something that people of many religions or no religion could debate and discuss precisely because they were not supported by the government. Do you think that the people through American history who identify themselves as free thinkers or secularists or agnostics or if they were brave enough as atheists that part of the reason that they had a difficult time was that simply that they were swimming against the tide and people who do that.

Have a rough time. Yes. But also ironically there's a particular thing in Europe for instance that smell. I mean I love the word freethinker because that implies a lot of things it doesn't necessarily mean you're an atheist. It means just what it says free and thought. And the combination of free and thought to me embodies the most noble parts of our heritage. And we were just lucky that so many freethinkers whatever they believed about God or not had a hand in the foundation of this government to but the extent that free thinkers have had a rough time in America. Ironically it's partly because of the separation of church and state that they championed because the separation of church and state has enabled all kinds of religions to flourish here in a way that in countries where there was a union of church and state they never did. You know in Europe and in Europe if for example you were opposed to the domination of the government by the Catholic Church often you would become an atheist opposed to both political and religious authority. But here people opposed the dominant religion because

it which was Protestantism of various kinds didn't have to become opposed to the political system. They expressed their religious views by going off and founding another church which was perfectly OK in America which it wasn't in a lot of the countries of Europe. Well we'll have to leave it at that because we here at the end of the time for people who want to read more from our guest look for the book we mentioned it's titled Free Thinkers a history of American secularism by our guest Susan Jacoby in a pleasure thank you very much appreciate it.