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).
4 comments:
This comment was made on my facebook post of this blog:
Jefferson's quote doesn't support your claim... He sais, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God..." It doesn't say anything about Man & his neighbors, it seems like a totally ill founded argument. Believing in one thing is very different than enforcing that "morality" upon others? After all, wouldn't Sharia Law be a bad for the same reason? Would you really support that sort of a religious code being implemented if it ever became popular enough?
This is my response:
Jefferson’s quote was never meant to support my claim. I do not think I ever said that (I looked at the post again just to make sure…I didn't). The purpose of including the quote was to explain where the phrase separation of church and state came from. You are right, if my argument was based on that quote, it would be completely ill founded.
To understand my views on views on enforcing v. not enforcing morality and Sharia Law, it is essential to understand my religious background.
I believe that before the earth was created, the spirits of all mankind lived among God. God presented a plan about how we would be tested on earth with mortal bodies. This plan was based on agency, the god given right of men to choose for themselves. Jesus Christ supported this plan and agreed to be the savior of all mankind. Lucifer rejected God’s plan and desired to force us to do the right thing. He said “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.” (Moses 4:1) God responded “Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down” (Moses 4:3)
As you see, I view agency as a sacred right, one that the success of our lives is founded upon. Everyone should be able to make the wrong decision, and likewise, not be forced to make the right one. It is written in the LDS scriptures that “Men are free to choose liberty and eternal life or captivity and death” (2 Ne. 2:27)
So no, I do not support having laws that force others to do the right thing, or not to do the wrong thing, unless of course that thing interferes with the agency of others. Examples of such actions would be killing, stealing, and lying. The first immediately stops a person’s ability to exercise agency, the second removes something a person used their agency to obtain, or rather is an undoing of agency, and the third effects a person’s ability to exercise agency correctly by giving them false information. The Ten Commandments, which Christians and Jews believe were revealed from God to the prophet Moses, explicitly forbid these actions. And yet, while these beliefs are supported by multiple religious establishments, they are also supported by the laws of most civilized societies throughout history. In the United States, the violation of such laws would be seen as violating ones right to pursue happiness.
Aside from the three commandments mentioned above, the violations of other commandments or doctrines supported by religious establishments do not interfere with one’s own right to choose for themselves. Examples of such violations would be not praying, not attending church, and not having pre-marital sex. While participating in these three sins could be argued to degrade society as a whole, they do not directly inhibit another’s ability to choose for themselves.
To be continued (They have a maximum character count for comments, who knew)
So I do not support Sharia law on the basis that it is forcing others to do what is right. If someone is forced to do what is right, it is impossible to know if they would do what is wrong should the opportunity present itself, going against the very purpose of our lives as a testing period to see if we will follow God. I agree with many of the precepts of Sharia law as being the right thing to do, but also believe no one should be forced to do the right thing. I think that engaging in homosexual conduct is wrong, but I think that the anti-sodomy laws of the past went too far in that they took away others right to choose, not to mention that they violate the constitutional right to privacy and are impossible to enforce.
Abortion, on the other hand, I view as murder, and think should be outlawed as all other forms of murder are. There are few situations in which an abortion might be viewed as acceptable such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. Unfortunately, the legality of abortion has been reinforced time after time by the Supreme Court of the United States, making any attempt to overturn the legality of abortion practically impossible. I doubt there is any chance or repealing roe v. wade, but I do not think that institutions that perform abortions should be federally subsidized.
This is much like my view on same-sex marriage. As I mentioned earlier, I think that people engaging in a homo-sexual life style should not be banned from doing so. But I do not think that it should be officially endorsed and supported by the government by legalizing same-sex marriage. I think as an American citizen, I have the right to choose what is and isn't supported by our country through tax breaks, entitlements and subsidies. I think all American citizens have that same right, whether they agree with me or not. If people in the United States, heaven forbid, wanted to take away the tax exempt status of charitable non-profit organizations( including many churches) and decrease their ability to provide disaster relief and help the poor and needy, that is their right, no matter what their religious (or non-religious) beliefs may be. It would not mean that the members of said churches could no longer practice their beliefs, but just that it would be harder for religious establishments themselves to function. The pursuit of happiness clause in the constitution does not say “without any hardships or trials” after it.
So the foundation of my argument is not the quote by Jefferson, but rather that that every person in this country has the right to have an opinion, religious or not religious. These opinions should not be supported by the government if they either force someone to abide by the teachings of a religious establishment (take away their agency) or refuse to let someone practice their religion (also taking away agency). Not granting same-sex marriage legality is much different then forcing people to no longer participate in homo-sexuality. I would never support the later.
Those opinions effectively force a part of the country to live by your Judeo-Christian dogma about the homosexuality. It's not about popularity (which you accept about abortion). Its about the secularization which you are reacting against.
You mention things about a 'testing period' none of that matters except to explain your bias. At the end of the day it is an unacceptable view to impose upon others. The enture framing is about "right" and "wrong" which again, is where your contradictions emerge... Purge the religiousity, it has no place in a secular policy formation, and more applicably: it will help clear up internal contradictions. You seem to support the inhibiting the agency by denying women a right, and gays the right to marriage... (Murder doesn't qualify as an argument due to Roe versus Wade. They are not a person, therefore not capable of being murdered; spiritualisms aren't relevant)
It does not force anyone to live by my beliefs. It rather prevents an act that I disagree with from receiving government sponsorship. That is why I said it was akin to my disagreement with abortion. I already agree, and explained previously, that although I disagree on more than just a religious basis with not giving a fetus the status of a distinct life form, I realize that if it came to a popular vote, roe v wade would be upheld. It is a lost battle. What I do not want is the act with which I disagree (In this case-abortion) being rewarded through government sponsorship. I believe that unlike hetero-sexual marriage, gay marriage does not provide a benefit to society through the creation of new citizens (obviously, I also think it is wrong). Therefore, I do not want this relationship to be supported through tax benefits. I approve of civil unions (which are defined differently everywhere), but that is a different story. Also, I would like to point out that there is legal precedent in denying alternative forms of marriage sanction in Reynolds v. United States.
I am not trying to argue what is right and what is wrong. I am arguing that we all are allowed to come to our own conclusions about what is based on experiences, theological/philosophical beliefs, emotions etc etc and vote based on it, no matter how the opinion was formed. If I voted against Bush because my religious views are anit-war, then that is ok, isn't it? I doubt anyone would argue that the act of my voting based on that belief was unconstitutional. Yet many politicians have effectively turned into the thought police, arguing that if you came about your political opinion due to religion/faith, it is unconstitutional.
People can disagree with my beliefs all they want, but to claim that they are unconstitutional is ridiculous.
I am pretty sure I have said this multiple times, but just in case it didn't get through-A vote against gay marriage or subsidies for planned parenthood IS NOT ENFORCING BELIEFS ON ANYONE. THEY STILL CHOOSE TO DO WHATEVER THEY FEEL LIKE. They can even have a ceremony and call it marriage, but it would not be endorsed by the government. Hetero-sexual couples get "married" all the time without getting the slip of paper from the county clerk. It just surprises me that people fail to separate the action from the federal recognition.
I respect your opinion (and your right to vote based on it),and understand why you disagree with mine, but separation of church and state as outlined in the constitution is completely irrelevant in the matter.
Post a Comment