SEPARATION OFCHURCH & STATE:
"Freedom FROM religion?"
19 February 2000
Certain elements among the so-called "Christian Right" have cooked up the statement, "Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion." It's a catchy slogan, but I beg to differ -- that is precisely what it means. In his excellent book, Why The Religious Right Is Wrong About Separation of Church And State, author Rev. Robert Boston makes the point that the highest law of the land guarantees each of us the freedom from having someone else's religion shoved down our throats. I am appreciative to Rev. Boston in that his book helped me to formulate some of my ideas here. Though I have not used any exact quotes, I have borrowed a few of his ideas and used an occasional paraphrase; therefore, I happily give him credit.
Click on the book to check
its availability at Amazon.com.
Some of these same "Christian Rightists" are fond of putting forth the notion that our country was "founded as a Christian nation by the Founding Fathers who were Christian." This couldn't be farther from the truth.
In reality, the lion's share of the Founding Fathers were of the Deist persuasion in their faith -- a far cry from today's fundamental Protestant brand of Christianity. At least one, Thomas Jefferson, was somewhat agnostic, and expressed his personal doubts about the deity of Jesus Christ. But this debate doesn't really accomplish anything. What ever private religious beliefs these men held, it is abundantly clear they were disciplined and sensible enough to separate them from running a secular government.
Founded as a "Christian nation?" Then why did the authors of the Constitution not craft the preamble to state, "We, the people of the United States, in order to found a Christian nation, form a more perfect Union, establish justice....?" They failed miserably to make their intentions clear, if that was, in fact, what they intended. Furthermore, the only reference which can be construed to be even remotely religious is the convention of dating, Anno Domini, the Latin words meaning "The Year of Our Lord," which are instead written in English: It states the writing was completed on the "Seventeenth day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven." And that is an awfully weak case. My bank down the street has a cornerstone containing the notation "Erected 1967 A.D." That doesn't make it a church. All other Constitutional references to religion take great pains to make it clear it must be separate from government.
It is quite true you will not find the exact words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. The expression was written early in his presidency by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association:
There you have an unmistakably clear indication of what Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and certainly one of the most influential of the Founding Fathers thought about the Constitution and its relationship to religion. (Though Jefferson was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, there is no doubt the man's philosophies were influential then as now.) It takes a wild stretch of imagination to think that building this "wall of separation" was not the intention behind the Constitution's First Amendment, as well as Article Six section three.Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state. --Quoted from: Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and I support that Amendment fully. People should remain forever free to worship (or not worship) as they see fit. But the Amendment works both ways: It prohibits the government not only from interfering in peoples' private religious affairs, but from establishing a state-approved religion. Showing any favoritism to a particular religious group would work against that principle. This is why the government must remain absolutely neutral in matters of religion. Though some fundamentalists treat the word "secular" as though it were an obscenity, I'm sorry -- but secular is exactly what our civil government is and must be, if it is to function effectively. If elected officials were to allow religious beliefs to influence public policy, then whose religion gets to be the deciding voice? Orthodox Judaism, with its prohibition of mixing meat and dairy products at the same meal would make McDonald's Big Macs against the law. Roman Catholicism would prohibit divorce. Southern Baptists, if they had been successful back in the days of their founding, would have retained the institution of slavery.
An even stronger protection against co-mingling church and state is contained in section three of Article Six, which states, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." If the Founding Father's had intended to create a "Christian Nation," what better way to guarantee that it forever remain that way than to allow only Christians to hold office? That clause would never have been included if this had been their intention. (It's interesting to note, by the way, that in his unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 1988, Pat Robertson stated he would appoint "only Christians and Jews" to his cabinet. The oath of office for the Presidency requires the oath taker to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States -- and Robertson clearly stated his intention to work against it!)
I received an email today from an individual who shares my view on separation of church and state. In this email, she enclosed a poem which has been making the rounds:
|
Author Unknown
Now I sit me down in school
If Scripture now the class recites,
Our hair can be purple or orange or green,
For praying in a public hall
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
It's scary here I must confess. |
Did I understand that poem correctly, and detect that its author sounded regretful about what he terms "outlawing guns?" In schools, no less? I have to wonder why someone who advocates the Christian religion would be in favor of something as unChristian as weapons of destruction. But I don't intend to turn this into an argument on gun control one way or the other, so let's move on.
The poem, I must admit, is clever in terms of its wording. But in terms of its content, I am hard-pressed to think of a plainer example of sheer demagoguery and falsehood. There have been a few occasions where school officials have misunderstood statutes or court rulings against public school prayer and forbidden students to bring a Bible to school. That was a severe mistake on their part -- nothing in the law or any court decision forbids this. But other than these overzealous people who have committed this error, no one that I know of has attempted to make private school prayer or private Bible reading "against the rule," and if anyone ever tried, I would join the fight against him. However, what is against the rule -- and should be -- is the sort of "stand up and lead the classroom in public" type of prayer, because it might offend someone of different religious beliefs. Not every public school student is Protestant. Some are Roman Catholic. Would Protestant parents want their children forcibly subjected to the "Hail Mary" Catholic prayer? Some students are Jewish. Would Roman Catholic parents want their children forcibly subjected to Hebrew prayers which omit the Lordship of Jesus Christ?
I mentioned that forcibly subjecting students to spoken prayer is, and should be, "against the rule." But do you know whose rule I meant? Here is what Jesus Christ had to say on the matter, from the Gospel of Matthew:
How can anyone who claims to be Christian flagrantly disregard the words of Jesus Christ, and insist upon making a public display out of praying -- precisely what He commanded us not to do?Matthew 6:1-9 (excerpts): "Make certain you do not perform your religious duties in public so that people will see what you do. If you do these things publicly, you will not have any reward from your Father in heaven.... "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites! They love to stand up and pray in the houses of worship and on the street corners, so that everyone will see them. I assure you, they have already been paid in full. But when you pray, go to your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what you do in private, will reward you. "When you pray, do not use a lot of meaningless words, as the pagans do, who think that their gods will hear them because their prayers are long. Do not be like them. Your Father already knows what you need before you ask him. This, then, is how you should pray: "Our Father [who art] in heaven....
Before mentioning an additional lesson Jesus taught on this subject, I want to preface it with an explanation, because the imagery tends to upset people if they take it the wrong way. Don't think of the animal; think of the futility of the action Jesus was describing when He said, "Don't cast your pearls before swine" in Matthew 7:6. It might seem at first glance that He was calling people of other religious beliefs pigs, but that is not the case. Jesus was quite firm in His teaching that people of other religions should be treated with respect in the classic "Good Samaritan" lesson, as well as His polite treatment of the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4. So in Matthew 7:6, He meant that if you tried to force your message on an unwilling or unappreciative audience not that they were pigs, but that you would be just as silly as someone who tried to get pigs to appreciate fine jewelry. In other words, "Don't witness where it ain't welcome."
That, truly, is granting other people freedom from religion, if they wish it. We must honor those wishes.
 CLICK HERE TO READ NEXT ESSAY |
 Return to menu of essays |
 Return to "V.E.'s" home page.
|
