This week, I’d like to talk about one of the questions we generated a few weeks ago. Why do alot of Christians think that laws should enforce their religious beliefs? Isn't it better to keep church and state completely separate?
Whether you are a person of religious conviction or not, the separation of church and state has far-reaching implications for lifestyle choices that our government enforces upon us. Do we have rights to abortion? Homosexual marriage? Using birth control until or if we are prepared to have children? People with strong religious convictions feel so strongly about these issues that they wish to code laws preventing all citizens from having the freedom to make independent choices on these matters.
When the question was posed to him “Should the public square be naked of religion?”, Professor Peter Kreeft answered, “It is good that the public square be naked of religion. That is, it is good, in some sense of the word good, that the public square, in some sense of the public square, be naked, in some sense of the word naked, of religion, in some sense of religion.” In other words, this issue is complicated. It is complicated by definition of terms, by personal biases, by religious experiences, and by knowledge of the political history of the United States.
Kreeft explains concerning the role of history and perspective in determining the separation of church and state, “I don’t believe that it’s always true, though I believe that it’s probably true for our place and time. I personally would not, I think, favor the separation of church and state if I were a Jew in Jerusalem in 1,000BC, or if a Frenchman in Paris in the court of King Louis of France in the thirteenth century, or even if I were a Muslim in Pakistan today.” It is possible then, that there is an element of history that necessarily figures into our analysis of whether or not the separation of church and state is good for the nation.
So let's look at the issue historically. What role should God and religious beliefs play in the governance of our nation? What role has God and religious belief already played in the history of American government?
Many of our founding fathers drew their foundations for political liberty from their Christian faith. Although contemporary dialogue seeks to discredit the religious foundations of our early leaders by making claims about their secret relations with Freemasons or other sects, the entire accepted canon of the history of our nation cannot be overturned. Our founding fathers did in fact write letters to each other in which they debated the Christian principles of liberty. Perhaps they did not do so as frequently as religious conservatives would like to say, nor as seldom as secular liberals claim, but the textual evidence does exist. (For more detailed description of the founding fathers’ religious preferences, listen to the Bolton debate listed below). We must root out all historical bias on both sides of the political spectrum in regard to this issue.
At any rate, it cannot be argued that the fathers defended religious liberty. The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This statement could be open to broad interpretation; however, it is important to note that the interpretation that has been chosen and popularized in American society is one originated in the mind of Thomas Jefferson.
As many of you may know, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the establishment clause of the First Amendment, but rather in a letter of Thomas Jefferson’s. The letter which sparked the comment was written to Thomas Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on Oct. 7, 1801. As a religious minority, the group was afraid that their right to practice Christianity in their own way would be infringed upon. Jefferson’s reply does not come until Jan. 1, 1802, nearly four months later. It is in this letter that Jefferson uses the famous phrase, “wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson’s own religious background plays a role in this discussion as well. While upholding the right of all to practice religion without impediment, Jefferson himself was a Deist. Jefferson edited a version of Scripture which excerpted statements made by Jesus, removing all those that mentioned him in any way being the Son of God. Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin served as a religious minority among the founding fathers.
Recent scholarship has uncovered earlier drafts of the Jefferson’s Danbury letter which were then turned into a display at the Library of Congress in 1998. What had been thought of as a quickly drafted afterthought to a religious organization is now seen as a part of on going conversation Jefferson had about the establishment clause and its interpretation. (Read more about the Jefferson letter drafts here: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)
Jefferson’s influential metaphor has influenced Supreme Court decisions, especially in the late 1940s. However, what if it was not what the founding fathers had intended to convey through the first amendment? Is there anyway to access that original historical intention and restore that to society? Here’s a better question: Would we even want to? Our nation is more religiously diverse than ever. Who gets to choose whose morality becomes the dominant societal paradigm?
Here are some sources that Tuesday’s discussion will draw from. If you are coming to join us at Davenport, I encourage you to do some of the reading and download one or more of the lectures. It’s not required, but doing so can only help you have authoritative sources to base your thinking upon for the discussion. We value everyone’s thinking, and we also value knowing why everyone is thinking what they are thinking.
Sources:
Bolton, Brian. God and Politics: Is There Historical Basis for Including God in Government and Public Institutions? Veritas Forum Media. Texas A&M University. 17 February 2005. http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/presenters/139 17 September 2006.
Danbury Baptist Association. “The Danbury Baptists’ Letter to Thomas Jefferson.” Separation of Church and State Home Page. http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm 17 September 2006.
Hutson, James. “‘A Wall of Separation’: FBI Helps Restore Jefferson’s Obliterated Draft.” LC Information Bulletin. Library of Congress: Washington, DC. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html 17 September 2006.
Jefferson, Thomas. “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists: The Draft and Recently Recovered Text.” LC Information Bulletin. Library of Congress: Washington, DC. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html 17 September 2006.
Jefferson, Thomas. “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists: The Final Letter, as Sent.” LC Information Bulletin. Library of Congress: Washington, DC. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html 17 September 2006.
Kreeft, Peter. The Relationship Between Religion and Public Education: Must the Public Square Be Naked? Veritas Forum Media. Louisiana State University. 11 March 2005. http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/presenters/101 17 September 2006.
US Bill of Rights. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm 17 September 2006.
Questions to think about and comment on:
1. Do you agree with the separation of church and state?
2. Should we maintain the separation of church and state just because we have historically done so? Would it be feasible now to reintigrate some form of religion into American government?
3. Should there be a moral basis for American law? If so, what should it be?
4. What role does God play in our political life?
5. What do you think the founders intended by the establishment clause of the First Amendment? Or what are some valid interpretations? Does it matter that Jefferson's is the interpretation that has most frequently been adopted if that is an opinion contrary to what the founders intended?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Bryan here again.
Good Lord, I desperately need a life.
Anyway, let me answer your questions one by one this time:
1: Yes, for the most part, I agree with the principle of separation of church and state. I don't think it's necessarily wrong for governments to support religious charities founded by churches or other religious groups. I also don't really see much of a problem with, for example, saying that we are "one nation under God" in our pledge or teaching students of Christianity's influences (positive and negative) in American history and culture. For that matter I also support a student's right to pray in a classroom setting, so long as he's doing so silently and privately.
Where I draw the line is when certain religious fundamentalists (sorry to use the word) argue that the government should actually promote and flaunt our Judeo-Christian heritage in the public, political arena. The minute religion and politics become mixed in -- the moment Christianity becomes an active force in political policymaking and is, in effect, endorsed by the government -- is the moment I think Christianity is no-longer truly "Christian." I see Christianity as a deeply personal, spiritual relationship with God that is in a sense incompatible with the public sphere. Sure, our morality can be influenced by our beliefs, and in turn our moral desicion-making can have influence in our nation. But if we start passing laws or making highly complex politial desicions on the basis of our faith and our faith alone, we risk ailenating non-believers and turning Christianity into something it wasn't.
In a sense this correlates to a critique of Catholicism -- and organized Christian religion in general. My problem with organized religion, when it tries to influence the behaviors of nationstates, is that it transforms the nature of the religion itself from a private relational institution promoting fellowship, spirituality and compassion into something less personal, less spiritual, more bureaucratic and less Biblical.
Here's another problem with integration of church and state: the moment a government accepts faith and religious reasoning as a basis for lawmaking is the moment that any nonbeliever can effectively say "Because I don't believe in your God, your laws do not apply to me; and the government has no authority over me." That is a key problem many theocracies have faced in the past -- justification on spiritual grounds for enforcement of laws leads to an erosion of respect for the authorities itself from dissenters and minority groups. Remember that governments exist to preserve the peace and promote security among society; this objective is eroded when religion severely influences the sphere of politics.
Separation of church and state not only ensures the purity of a government founded on a moral code and legal structure independent of any particular religious belief. It also ensures the purity of our churches by separating them from the muck and grime of the political arena. Imagine an alternate America where churches were active political forces pursuing ailenating agendas. If Christians tried to force the government through legal integration of spiritual principles into a pro-life stance, what would happen to every pro-choice Christian? The separation of church and state preserves the diversity of our faith; Christians are not "boxed in" to a particular political, social or economic agenda or association. I would fear Christianity's influence would actually be limited and corrupted through a full-scale integration into our governance.
2. I think I answered this question above.
3. Yes and no. There should be a moral basis for American law, but it should transcend the morality of any association of religion and instead be based on widely accepted moral principles that folks of all faiths -- and even folks without any faith -- can share. For example, you don't have to be a Christian to believe in America in a moral foundation for the rights protected in our Bill of Rights. We all have a right to free speech -- that's something that grounded in Judeo-Christian moral principles, but there's an intellectual explanation even an atheist philosopher could offer as to why "free speech" is an inherent human right that governments should protect.
It's okay to have laws based on our morality so long as we don't use the Bible -- or the Koran or Buddha's teachings, for that matter -- as our justification for that law. In other words, if Law X exists and it exists because "the Bible says so," and no other feasible explanation is offered for the existence of the law (an unlikely scenairo, I would suppose), then the law should be rejected. But if Law X can be substaniated not just on a basis of faith but also on practical terms related to the objectives of our government (promoting the security of the majority, protecting individual rights and liberties, preserving life, etc.), that's fine. As an example I would say that it's entirely possible to have a "pro-life" position in regards to abortion and not have an argument that boils down to "our government should outlaw abortion just because God says so."
In conclusion, in my opinion the great thing about God is that He is a truly rational thinker; there's not a single legal position He takes in the Bible (in the Ten Commandments, for example) that can't be justified on entirely secular grounds. It's not as if God's definition of morality is intellectually groundless. If it were, we wouldn't have a terribly "benevolent", "omnipotent" or "compassionate" God, would we? The God I believe in clearly values a sense of justice that can be readily defined. It's not as if I'm arguing that "I have no faith in God and that's why I don't want our legislation based on faith alone." I'm arguing "God is powerful and good enough to proffer us logic that defends His interpretations with justifications even atheists can relate to. For the sake of promoting a government that truly reflects all of its citizens we should encourage promoting a Christian agenda on the grounds of logic as opposed to falling back on faith alone."
I'm done tonight -- can't even get to #4 or #5. I think this was long enough as is...sorry for the boring read.
Post a Comment