One of the most common ways which opponents of church/state separation make their case is to engage in a fallacy of equivocation by using multiple definitions of 'public' and 'private.' In this manner, they can argue in favor of 'public' religion by using one sort of example while in reality meaning something entirely different.

Kerwin Brown is a good example of this, making a comparison between China and America:

Both countries claim to allow religious freedom but as my grandmother used to say “the proof is in the pudding”. In reality both countries the government regulates religion. In the United States this regulation causes religion to be practiced in private just like oppressed religions have always been practiced. Public display is frowned on and penalized when it occurs on governmental property.

Technically speaking, what Kerwin Brown writes here is false — it only has the appearance of validity because of his use of equivocation. In nations which don’t respect religious liberty, religion has to be practiced “in private” in the sense that it must be hidden from the general view of the public (and especially the authorities). Religion is “private” in the sense of having to keep quiet about it — almost as if someone has to be ashamed of it.

In nations like America where religious liberty is respected, religion is “private” in the sense that it is entirely in the hands of private individuals. Being in the hands of private individuals means that religion has little or no public accountability, public funding, or public control — in other words, the government isn’t involved.

It’s simply untrue to say that public displays of religion are “frowned” upon — you can’t go anywhere in America without tripping over churches, religious television shows, religious radio shows, religious books, people wearing religious symbols, and so forth. People — private individuals, acting as private individuals — are not penalized for practicing religion on public property. People can pray, preach, and do just about whatever they want. All that’s prohibited or penalized is government endorsement of religion.

For example students are not allowed to say public prayers at sporting events.

That’s false. Students say prayers at sporting events all the time. What’s not allowed is for the government to officially endorse and support such prayers by setting aside special time for them, allowing only one type of prayer to be said, or providing government equipment like loudspeakers to help the prayers.

This is an important difference: prayers “in public” (out in the open) and “public prayers” (publicly sponsored, supported, and endorsed). Kerwin Brown is arguing as if the former were being prohibited, but they aren’t; what’s he’s really arguing for is the latter, which is contrary to principles of religious liberty.

The difference between the two senses of “public vs. private” isn’t that hard to understand. If Kerwin Brown really doesn’t get it, then that doesn’t say much for his intelligence or grasp of the English language. If Kerwin Brown does get it, though, then he’s deliberately deceiving people. Which do you suppose it is? Perhaps this is a clue:

The regulation of religion is justified if a religion is found to violate the rule love your neighbor as yourself.

There is absolutely no legal basis for such a claim — Kerwin Brown likes to reference the Constitution for his views, but is there anything in the Constitution which would justify this? No. Is it just a coincidence that “love your neighbor as yourself” is a Christian statement and, therefore, the above claim could justify regulating all religions except Christianity? Perhaps not.

The idea that only Christianity should be accorded full religious freedom is a standard argument for Christian Reconstructionists. Curiously, it’s also standard for Reconstructionists to use deceptive, deceitful arguments in order to mislead people about what’s really going on. Is Kerwin Brown an adherent of Dominion Theology? His arguments are completely consistent with that misbegotten, fascist ideology.

Either way, Kerwin Brown can’t be taken seriously when it comes to matters of religion or law.

 

Read More:

• Religious Right
• Religious Right News
• Christian Privilege
• Christian Supremacy