I see too many examples today of people pulling out the "separation of church and state" card in political conversations without understanding the history behind it. They have heard the phrase "separation of church and state" ten thousand times, but have no idea what it means. I hope to clear up misconceptions about this principal and hopefully get my rant on while I'm at it.
Let's answer on of our questions from above-Does it mention separation of church and state in the constitution? No, it actually does not. What the constitution does say concerning religion is contained in The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The sections of The First Amendment regarding religion are the establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) and the free exercise clause (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof).
The establishment clause first prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress and second prohibits the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another (including no religion or atheism). This is why in 1962 in the case of Engel v. Vitale, the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to have mandatory prayer in school.
The free exercise clause is pretty self explanatory. You can practice any religion you feel fit without fear of persecution or regulation. The freedom of religion clause was defended in 1963 in the case of Sherbert v. Werner. Adele Sherbert was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. This denial was found to be unconstitutional.
The phrase "Separation of Church and State" refers to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote about the First Amendment saying:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State.
So now that we know what this phrase means, I would like to discuss what it does not mean. It does not mean, as all too many people believe today, that people with religious viewpoints, are not allowed to incorporate those viewpoints into their political decisions. In fact, saying that someone is not allowed to have religiously charged political beliefs is in contradiction with the constitution, which blatantly protects the free practice thereof. Many people believe that religion is nothing more than a fleeting fancy, to be believed and practiced only on Sunday and to be left at home when going to the polls. This is a gross misunderstanding. I personally base everything I do in my life on my religious beliefs. It shapes what I say, what I think and what I eat and drink. For me, this leads to very specific political opinions, two of which are being against same-sex marriage and abortion. I believe that theses two practices are sins. And today like in days past, I believe that as our society becomes more sinful, the more likely it will be destroyed by the hand of God. I don't know about you, but I would rather stay un-destroyed as long as possible.
While I have seen hundreds of comments in the social media sphere supporting the belief that religious people should be seen but not heard, newspaper articles supporting this same opinion abound.
The San Francisco Chronicle:
Our government's role is to guarantee the freedom and equality of every citizen under the law, however. A church's teachings regarding the definition and "sanctity" of marriage have no place in federal law. Let's not forget what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Legislation (such as the Defense of Marriage Act and the "no gay marriage" statute Romney promises/threatens) imposes a religious definition of marriage on the entire country.
Brendon Ayanbadejo of the Baltimore Ravens:“church and state are supposed to be completely separated when it comes to the rule of law in the United States. So the religious argument that God meant for only man and woman to be together has no bearing here! America is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, or any other religion that is out there. And the pantheon of gods can attest that there are hundreds of them. We are a secular capitalistic democracy. That’s it.”
Jonathan L. Eisenberg, President of the "American Union in Defense of Separation of Church and State" referring to a a ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota:
“The amendment is, at its core, an attempt to impose one specific religious view on all citizens,” Eisenberg wrote for MinnPost. “That is not the proper role of government under our First Amendment guarantees of free exercise and non-establishment of religion.
As you see, it is a pretty mainstream belief that, for some reason, religious people should not be allowed to have a say in the laws the government makes about a religious institution. It is way out of line to say that same-sex marriage is a purely political issue. Marriage was religious thousands of years before it was ever political. The fact that it has now entered into the political realm is just a reflection of how secular today's society is getting.
A constitutional ban of gay marriage would not be in violation of separation of Church and State at all. The bill, much like Proposition 8, would have been created by the people (not the government) and been voted into the constitution by the people (not the government). In doing so the government will have kept up their end of the bargain by not interfering with its citizens religious beliefs, and in the process it will not have broken the establishment clause which respects an establishment of religion, but it will have respected the citizens of the United States, many of which just so happen to belong to those establishments of religion, and believe it or not, actually follow the teachings of those religions as if they were true, and may just bring those learned principles into the voting booth (longest run on sentence ever).
