It is an established belief in America that the Constitution affirms the separation of church and state -- the idea is that the State cannot legislate religion and religion cannot participate in legislation. And that's partly true. Which part? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Clear as day. The government does not get to legislate religions. Now, the other part about religions keeping out of the government ... you'll find that ... hang on ... hey, I'm sure there's something for that. As it turns out, no, there isn't. Taken largely from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association, it is clear that Jefferson was talking about keeping government out of religion. It is not clear that he intended anything like the reverse. Look, it's a simple matter of spheres of authority. The authority over religion is God; the authority over the State is man (under God). Thus, the State has no authority over religion. But there's more.
Any fundamental understanding of "religion" of any sort requires that the adherent ... adheres to it. A religion that has no bearing on life is not a religion. And the Christian religion is based on a deep-seated relationship with God. It is not possible to be a follower of Christ and not involve God in all things in which a follower of Christ is involved. It isn't merely a belief -- it's an entire worldview and affects every corner of a believer's life. In that sense, then, the State cannot legislate religion because the State has no authority there. As Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) -- the same Peter who wrote, "Honor the emperor" (1 Peter 2:17). (Peter lived in Nero's time.) Yes, we are to submit to government ... second. God first. So while we cannot leave God out of our everyday lives, we must not allow our everyday lives to try to remove Him.
We can be so gullible sometimes. It is a standing joke: "It must be true; I read it on the Internet." And we smile, knowing that being on the Internet is in no way proof of truth. Yet, someone comes to us and says, "Our nation is predicated on the separation of church and state," a patently impossible statement, and we buy it. We submit to it. Don't do it. The Master of All is not limited to your private life. If He is, He's not the Master of All, is He?
5 comments:
That's the problem I have with this current crop of political Catholics that started with Kennedy, they some how can believe one thing is true, ie abortion is the purposeful killing of a child, but then say the state should allow and encourage against the thing they say they believe. There's a reason the Bible says that "by their fruits you shall know them." If what you believe doesn't actually effect your life, then you don't really believe it.
I like the way you transitioned our recent conversation about the First Amendment to a reminder of our calling to live an authentic Christian life that reflects our core beliefs--in both our private and public lives. It is a natural segway, I think, since the ability to live out our faith as God leads us is a cherished protected right of United States’ citizens--at least for the time being and within certain parameters. Still, this is a liberty that I appreciate and a freedom I do not take for granted these days. I will be praying towards a continuation of this ability as instructed in 1 Tim. 2:1-2.
“A religion that has no bearing on life is not a religion.” I believe this statement is true, but I also realize its full accuracy depends on how well the adherents “practice” their religion and therefore allow it to influence them. In other words, the failure of a religion’s adherents to adhere to the religion doesn’t invalidate the religion overall, just possibly for that particular adherent. Still, your point is well-taken.
As I pondered this statement, I could not think of a religion that did not include some sort of tenets promoted to its followers (this was, admittedly, without checking through the extensive list of “religions and spiritual traditions” I found at Wikipedia). Even the ludicrously fabricated Pastafarianism (described as “a parodic new religious movement”) and the Satanic Temple (a “non-theistic religious organization”)--just two examples of nontraditional “religions”--defined some core beliefs and values, as do all the major religions of the world, of course. It seems that even the developers of belief systems that dishonor and mock God realize their religion should stand for something--while their followers fall for anything (as the saying goes). I am so grateful to have the Truth to shape and have bearing on my life.
I understand what you're saying, but, if "religion" is "beliefs strongly held" and these people have beliefs that aren't strong enough held to have any bearing on life, I'd say these aren't actual religions. Not the religions themselves, but to those who hold them ... because they don't. You can always tell what a person really believes by their actions. Claiming a religion is not the same as having it.
I read that statement of yours too literally, I think (and I was mostly just clarifying it, for myself at least). My main point would be that Christianity--as a “religion”--is true--whether its followers do well to demonstrate that truth or not. Of course, for the Christian faith, there will be evidence of one’s beliefs that goes beyond merely following the tenets of a religion.
Post a Comment