I dare you. Try to make an actual separation between Church and State. If you can, it's either not one or not the other.
There has been lots of discussion over lots of years about this whole concept of "Separation of Church and State". Was it the intention of the Bill of Rights to put this divide? Or was it the intention to simply prevent the government from placing rules on religion? If the latter, of course, then there is no reason that religion cannot influence government. That's not the restriction, is it? The whole thing seems to hinge not on the Constitution, but on a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in which he says that the First Amendment ended up "building a wall of separation between Church and State." Now, of course, what he meant by that is up for grabs. It would seem to me that he was saying that the First Amendment prevents the State from meddling with the Church, not that "there should be no religious influence in government at all". But this has been so inculcated into American thinking that it doesn't matter anymore. It is the case, regardless of what Jefferson intended, that there must be no religion when it comes to politics.
So I repeat, I dare you. I dare you to actually make that stick. I dare you to actually show how that works. You see, religion is a worldview. It paints everything the person sees. No religion? That, too, is a worldview that paints everything the person sees. A worldview is a perspective built of comprehensive principles and beliefs that are used to interpret everything you see around you. Thus, if your worldview is a religious one, then your politics will be filtered through it. Conversely, if you are able to set aside religion when it comes to politics, then it isn't a worldview; it's a convenience item. As a convenience item, it's not a genuine religion. The dictionary defines religion as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Usually, of course, it involves a supernatural being and a code of ethics and maybe even ritual, but it is that set of beliefs that defines "religion". In other words, if you can get elected, go to Washington (or the state capitol or the city hall) and your religion does not influence your perceptions and your decisions, then it is not real religion.
Politics and religion can be a volatile mix. Picture, for instance, sharia law. Not something we want. Not here in America. Nor do we want the Roman Catholic Church making the laws for our country. We certainly don't want Fred Phelps as emperor. Who needs that kind of hate? No, these things are, by common perception, not a good thing. On the other hand, we surely don't want the government dictating religious practices, do we? I mean, if that happened they could ban prayer in public schools, prevent private individuals from presenting their religious views in public, outlaw Bible studies in private homes. They could discipline students for giving a teacher a doughnut with a Bible verse or even ban student-led prayer. Who knows where it would go? We, of course, seem bent on finding out. So, tell me again about this so-called "separation of Church and State". Doesn't seem to work in either direction, does it?
6 comments:
You pose a dilemma that, I think, is born of misconceptions about the principle of separation of church and state.
First, it hardly hinges only on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. 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.”
Second, 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. In this context, the principle 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 purpose 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.
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
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
Thanks for the new information. However, perhaps you missed my point.
Doug Indeap: "[S]eparation of church and state does not prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions."
So if, say, a student in school is convinced, "based on principles derived from their religion", that they are supposed to share the gospel with their teachers, why is it that they get disciplined for the act? If, indeed, a private business believes that a particular act (such as, say, two women getting "married") is against their beliefs "based on principles derived from their religion", so they choose not to provide a (voluntary) service for that act (say, take "wedding photos"), why does the law penalize them? If a homeowner in Gilbert, AZ, believes "based on principles derived from their religion" that they should have a Bible study in their home, why is it that it is illegal to do so? These things (and they're just a few of the real examples available) are not cases of religion invading government, but government restricting the free practice of religion.
Still not my point.
My point was that people of all types take their religious views with them, whether they are naturalistic or theistic (or any other "istic"). They take them to the legislature or whatever other government entity it is in which they serve. And, since all laws are necessarily based on moral views, these religious views inform their perspectives on legislation. Therefore, no law can actually ensure "separation of Church and State" unless it can actually remove religion from the legislator ... which would then become a religious view itself that requires "no religion" (obviously a contradiction and an impossibility). So it is not possible to separate church and state.
Like nearly all rights and freedoms, the freedom to exercise one's religion is not absolute. Thus, a student generally is free to pray and otherwise exercise his or her religion at a public school--in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.
There also is the difficultly of whether and, if so, when the government should require people to do things contrary to their faith. The government could hardly operate if anyone could opt out of laws with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it. The courts have confronted this sort of issue and have ruled that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion, but it can enact laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g, laws concerning traffic, pollution, taxes, crimes, contracts, fraud, negligence) and require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. Thus, the government can forbid discrimination against specified people and apply that law even to those who say their religion allows or requires them to discriminate. And the government can adopt land use laws and apply them to regulate where churches are located. In rare (one hopes) circumstances, such a generally-applicable law could put an individual in an ethical Catch-22 if it requires one to take actions one considers immoral. For just this reason, when such binds can be anticipated, provisions may be added to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors.
But, to your point: You are indeed correct that it is impossible to separate church and state--in the sense you use that phrase. Touché.
My point: The courts use the phrase separation of church and state in an entirely different sense, and in the sense they use the phrase, the dilemma you pose does not arise. The constitutional principle does not require legislators to separate themselves from their religions; to the contrary, the religious views of legislators may inform their policy decisions. The Wake Forest paper does a nice job of laying this out.
Semantic apples and oranges.
Doug Indeap: "The courts use the phrase separation of church and state in an entirely different sense, and in the sense they use the phrase, the dilemma you pose does not arise."
You being a lawyer and all, I would hope that your information on such things is accurate. It may not be the intent of the phrase to block individual religion from Washington. It is, however, the understanding of some that this is exactly the purpose, and they continue to go to court to make it so (see, for instance, the Freedom From Religion Foundation which sought and won a ruling that it was illegal for the country to have a "National Prayer Day"). I'd like to think you are correct, but what I hear and what I see is a growing force of legal effort to ban religion from government entirely. It is being tried out in court and it is certainly being tried out in the voting booth. (For instance, people were outraged when they heard that George Bush's favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ. "Can't have him in the White House!") So it may be a misunderstanding ... but it is a popular one ... with teeth.
You are correct to observe that some--on both "sides"--sometimes assert the principle of separation of church and state calls for things it actually doesn't.
In this regard, it is critical, for instance, to distinguish between the “public square” and “government.” The principle does not, as some say, call for purging religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. That's why a government proclamation establishing a National Prayer Day is problematic; depending on what it says, such a proclamation may get the government into areas that are none of its business and properly left to each of us as individuals to decide.
From the 2010 proclamation for the National Day of Prayer:
"I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 6, 2010, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God’s continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us."
If that is promotion of a religion, I don't have a clue what religion it promotes. But it is this proclamation that the court struck down.
Post a Comment