The term, separation of church and state, is not a foreign one to Christians. Whenever someone feels that the church is getting too public, they file suits or make complaints. Then some governing authority steps in and says the church is going too far and is violating separation of church and state. Yet, how can you be violating a law that does not exist?
There is a principle, maybe even a precedent, of separation of church and state but no such law. The principle began with Thomas Jefferson. The Darbury Baptist Association wrote to him that their politicians were treating their religious liberties as personal favors. In his reply to the Darbury Baptist Association regarding their complaint he used the words, “wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson wrote that from a national view, the government could do nothing that would support the establishment of a state religion. In other words, he didn’t feel that it was the place for the government to be involved in the affairs of religion.
This lingo was later taken up by a plethora of politicos to justify everything from why there shouldn’t be prayer in school to Nativity scenes on courthouse lawns. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case when it comes to taxes and 501 ( c ) (3) statuses. According to that law, churches cannot be preach political stances from the pulpit lest they risk their tax-free status. If the church cannot have a say in what goes on inside a courtroom, how can the government have a say about what goes on inside a church house? This doctrine apparently works one-way.
There is a need for a ‘separation’ between church and state. The Framers of the Constitution did not want it to be possible for a state-sponsored or state-mandated church; thus, the First Amendment. Otherwise, we’d have the government offering special privileges or funding to one faith or another, depending upon who was in office and what faith he or she belonged. What I don’t think the Framers intended was the exclusion of faith in the affairs of state. In other words, they didn’t want the state involved in religious business; they did not have a problem with religion being involved in the state’s business.
The Framers understood that people would bring their religion or lack of religion with them to work. The Framers did. Many of them were religious and it was reflected in the early formations of our government. Our money says, “In God we trust.” The Ten Commandments are on the wall of the Supreme Court. Elected officials and witnesses are sworn in on Bible (or Qurans) and say “So help me God.” Congress starts or started each session in prayer. Even our Declaration of Independence says ‘that men are endowed by their Creator’ certain inalienable rights.
In short, I think that the whole separation of church and state in being blown out of proportion. When it becomes illegal for a policemen to have a cross on his uniform, a stocker at Home Depot to have a religious button on his apron, a child to wear a hijab to school, then we have taken separation of church and state too far. What about the freedom to express your religion so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone? What about freedom of expression? Do these go out the window to protect someone else’s right to not be exposed to said expressions? If that’s the case, when and where will it stop?
Soon, it may be that all rights to express religious beliefs may be gone while it will be ok for people to walk around with clothing, jewelry, and signs expressing all sorts of deviant and profane words and acts.
2 comments:
In reality, church state separation is central to America's founding principles and faith heritage.
In 1644, Baptist Roger Williams (persecuted by "Christian" colonial theocrats, who considered Baptists heretical) called for a "wall of separation" between church and state. Baptists' "wall of separation" would prevent government from interfering with the free exercise of religion, and prevent government from incorporating religion into governance.
Generations of Baptists were persecuted, and shed blood, in the fight (against colonial theocracies) to separate church and state. Their triumph finally came in the enactment of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, establishing the Baptist vision of a "wall of separation" between church and state.
Deniers of church state separation often respond that the phrase "wall of separation" is not in the U. S. Constitution. Well, neither is the word "Trinity" in the Bible, but most deniers of church state separation probably believe in the Trinity.
More importantly, Christians of the late 18th and early 19th centuries clearly understood that the First Amendment wording - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - separated church from state. Their testimony bears much more weight than the fabricated history loved by many modern conservative Christians and politicians.
Make no mistake: denying church state separation mocks our nation's founding principles and faith heritage. Church state separation was good for America in 1791, and it is good for America now. To see the problems of merging church and state, look to the Middle East, where conservative religious law (Sharia Law, based on the biblical Old Testament) rules.
Church state separation is a liberal, and American, moral value of which we all can be proud.
Bruce Gourley
Director
Baptist History & Heritage Society
www.baptisthistory.org
www.wallofseparation.us
The phrase "separation of church and state" is but a metaphor to describe the principle reflected by the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) and, indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office.
James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
The primary purpose of the First Amendment religion clauses is not to protect churches or government, but rather to protect individuals' religious freedom. The free-exercise clause does this directly by constraining the government from prohibiting individuals from freely exercising their religions. The establishment clause does this indirectly by constraining government from promoting or otherwise taking steps to establish any religion, thus assuring that individuals are free to exercise their religions without fearing the government will favor the religions of others and thus disfavor theirs.
Some who nonetheless would like to use government to promote their religion have argued that the First Amendment works only in one direction--to protect churches from government, but not the other way around. This, they suppose, would leave them (and churches) free to insinuate their religion into government and thereby effectively establish it as the nation's religion. To the extent that the First Amendment prevents that, it can be said to protect government from churches. Indeed, the notion of a one directional wall is self-contradictory: If any church is free to so influence and control government and thereby achieve a favored or established status, all individuals are at risk of their religions falling into disfavor with government and facing discriminatory treatment. One of the primary aims of the First Amendment is to prevent just that.
Separation of church and state does not prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle of separation of church and state, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Post a Comment