Thoughts on the Separation of Church and State
With the election looming, politics seemed to find their way into conversation quite freely, even in contexts where such discussions tend to be avoided like the plague. For instance, my workplace, a medium-sized family-owned department-style store. While I'm always up for a hearty debate with coworkers and customers alike, most of my coworkers seem quick to dodge the topic, whether because they fear offending customers, or they are just uncomfortable with intellectual discussions in general (a feeling with which I am utterly unfamiliar). But with the excitement surrounding the election, opinions found their voices at the counter.
One gal, who doesn't usually work the floor, launched into something of a tirade about the ignorance and hatred that she perceives and being fundamental to the Republican base. After roundly mocking some version of the stereotypical Midwestern farmer as being bumbling, uneducated, and quite literally idiotic, she made an obligatory comment about the hate-mongering of the religious right. Now, I was quite naturally disposed to play the (so-called) devil's advocate, and cheerfully suggested that if there is nothing wrong with religion (which she was kind enough to assure me), then perhaps a religious individual's selection of their civil leaders should be informed by the moral code of that religion. She disagreed. She made it fairly clear that, while religion may have its place in most areas of life, it should have nothing to do with
a person's vote. From there, we skimmed over some classic points of debate on the separation of Church and State, but I ultimately figured I should shut my trap when we started drifting toward a discussion of American history, and the intentions of the pilgrims and Founding Fathers (a debate I felt ill-equipped for, while she was even less so).
In the afternoon, I mentioned to another coworker that I'd gotten a little worked up over the Church and State issue, and immediately found myself in a rather one-sided discussion of Prop 8. (For those of you outside CA, the passage of Prop 8 would amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. This would reverse a decision by the state Supreme Court earlier this year, and reiterate the previous law, passed by popular vote in 2000. The proposition is supported primarily by Christian groups, and I believe it was the brain-child of a group associated with James Dobson's ministries.) She objected strongly to the religious origins of the effort, of course citing the separation of Church and State. As I didn't feel it would profit anyone to prolong that debate, and since my lunch was over and I needed to get back to work, I detached myself from the conversation the best I could. Since then, however, I have not given up thinking about it, and have come to feel that Church/State objections to such conflicts are based on three major misconceptions.
First: "The separation of Church and State is constitutional." This point is often discussed by many who are more qualified than I, so I will try to keep it brief. The classic response in any separation debate is to ask where it's found in the Constitution. The answer is, of course, the First Amendment. The text itself, however, is less than explicit. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Jefferson then wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, the Supreme Court introduced the phrase to actual law in 1878, yada, yada, yada. If you want more details than "yada, yada, yada," check it out on Wikipedia, or any conservative pundit who's chimed in on the issue. The point is, it would seem that the First Amendment addresses only the national legislature's ability to pass laws to empower or oppress any religious group. Does this apply to the case of a state referendum being funded by a para-church non-profit? You tell me.
Second: "Faith-based political action is undemocratic." The next misconception I've perceived about religious citizens is the idea that every parishioner is somehow voting on behalf of their parish. That, when an individual chooses to affiliate his or herself with a particular church, they lose their political individuality. Sure, some churchgoers will inevitably vote along their church's "party line," but that can be true of any social organization, such as a school, or even just one's neighborhood. But in reality, at least as far is the State can be concerned, religion is essentially an individual phenomenon. Here we may find it useful to make a distinction between "separation of Church and State" and "separation of Church and Religion." This, perhaps, is where the conflict actually lies. While I suspect that most Americans believe in some form of separation of Church and State, it seems that the secularist perspective has shifted to separating the State, no longer from the religious institution, but from any manifestation or practice of religion. This distinction can be pursued further, but for the sake of time, I believe I can use it to cut directly to the conclusion: that a unified, popular effort to pass a referendum (eg Prop 8) is not an infringement upon the separation of Church and State, but rather the right and natural exercise of democracy.
Third: The compartmentalization of religion. It is becoming increasingly clear to me the degree to which secularists are unable to grasp the all-encompassing nature of (some) religious belief. In my perspective, the notion that someone would check their religious values at the door when voting is, frankly, laughable. To me, that's about on par with saying, "when you vote, try not to care about your fellow man; we don't want love and charity to get muddled into politics." (I say this by way of analogy, not to suggest that religion is the only source of true love and charity. That, of course, is another topic for another time.) My coworker (from the first conversation) kept repeating, "when it comes to your minister, absolutely look to your religion for guidance. When it comes to the president, leave it out." In the last couple years, I've been no stranger to such assertions. In my concept of religion, however, that idea is inconceivable. For myself, and millions (if not billions) of others in the world, religion is not just "a part of my life;" it doesn't just inform my actions and my thought in church and at home. In my faith, my religion, the essence of who I am is realized. I am not just a Human who believes that there was a christ. I am a Christian, one who's life is and must be devoted to the teaching and the will of my Lord; that is, to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. These things comprise the definition of who and what I am, and they should inform every thought and every action, every moment of my life. If that scares people, so be it. If anyone feels that my beliefs should be kept out of politics, they can try to find a way to keep me from voting. But I think that everyone must search their own presuppositions, and fundamental beliefs. We each have our own decision-making paradigms, and I have a hard time believing that anyone can truly say that they leave their personal beliefs at the door when they vote.
I may have a more thorough conclusion to add, but I know some of you have been waiting for weeks now, so this will do for now.
(For those wondering, it looks like Prop 8 did pass by a small margin.)
One gal, who doesn't usually work the floor, launched into something of a tirade about the ignorance and hatred that she perceives and being fundamental to the Republican base. After roundly mocking some version of the stereotypical Midwestern farmer as being bumbling, uneducated, and quite literally idiotic, she made an obligatory comment about the hate-mongering of the religious right. Now, I was quite naturally disposed to play the (so-called) devil's advocate, and cheerfully suggested that if there is nothing wrong with religion (which she was kind enough to assure me), then perhaps a religious individual's selection of their civil leaders should be informed by the moral code of that religion. She disagreed. She made it fairly clear that, while religion may have its place in most areas of life, it should have nothing to do with
a person's vote. From there, we skimmed over some classic points of debate on the separation of Church and State, but I ultimately figured I should shut my trap when we started drifting toward a discussion of American history, and the intentions of the pilgrims and Founding Fathers (a debate I felt ill-equipped for, while she was even less so).
In the afternoon, I mentioned to another coworker that I'd gotten a little worked up over the Church and State issue, and immediately found myself in a rather one-sided discussion of Prop 8. (For those of you outside CA, the passage of Prop 8 would amend the state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. This would reverse a decision by the state Supreme Court earlier this year, and reiterate the previous law, passed by popular vote in 2000. The proposition is supported primarily by Christian groups, and I believe it was the brain-child of a group associated with James Dobson's ministries.) She objected strongly to the religious origins of the effort, of course citing the separation of Church and State. As I didn't feel it would profit anyone to prolong that debate, and since my lunch was over and I needed to get back to work, I detached myself from the conversation the best I could. Since then, however, I have not given up thinking about it, and have come to feel that Church/State objections to such conflicts are based on three major misconceptions.
First: "The separation of Church and State is constitutional." This point is often discussed by many who are more qualified than I, so I will try to keep it brief. The classic response in any separation debate is to ask where it's found in the Constitution. The answer is, of course, the First Amendment. The text itself, however, is less than explicit. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." Jefferson then wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, the Supreme Court introduced the phrase to actual law in 1878, yada, yada, yada. If you want more details than "yada, yada, yada," check it out on Wikipedia, or any conservative pundit who's chimed in on the issue. The point is, it would seem that the First Amendment addresses only the national legislature's ability to pass laws to empower or oppress any religious group. Does this apply to the case of a state referendum being funded by a para-church non-profit? You tell me.
Second: "Faith-based political action is undemocratic." The next misconception I've perceived about religious citizens is the idea that every parishioner is somehow voting on behalf of their parish. That, when an individual chooses to affiliate his or herself with a particular church, they lose their political individuality. Sure, some churchgoers will inevitably vote along their church's "party line," but that can be true of any social organization, such as a school, or even just one's neighborhood. But in reality, at least as far is the State can be concerned, religion is essentially an individual phenomenon. Here we may find it useful to make a distinction between "separation of Church and State" and "separation of Church and Religion." This, perhaps, is where the conflict actually lies. While I suspect that most Americans believe in some form of separation of Church and State, it seems that the secularist perspective has shifted to separating the State, no longer from the religious institution, but from any manifestation or practice of religion. This distinction can be pursued further, but for the sake of time, I believe I can use it to cut directly to the conclusion: that a unified, popular effort to pass a referendum (eg Prop 8) is not an infringement upon the separation of Church and State, but rather the right and natural exercise of democracy.
Third: The compartmentalization of religion. It is becoming increasingly clear to me the degree to which secularists are unable to grasp the all-encompassing nature of (some) religious belief. In my perspective, the notion that someone would check their religious values at the door when voting is, frankly, laughable. To me, that's about on par with saying, "when you vote, try not to care about your fellow man; we don't want love and charity to get muddled into politics." (I say this by way of analogy, not to suggest that religion is the only source of true love and charity. That, of course, is another topic for another time.) My coworker (from the first conversation) kept repeating, "when it comes to your minister, absolutely look to your religion for guidance. When it comes to the president, leave it out." In the last couple years, I've been no stranger to such assertions. In my concept of religion, however, that idea is inconceivable. For myself, and millions (if not billions) of others in the world, religion is not just "a part of my life;" it doesn't just inform my actions and my thought in church and at home. In my faith, my religion, the essence of who I am is realized. I am not just a Human who believes that there was a christ. I am a Christian, one who's life is and must be devoted to the teaching and the will of my Lord; that is, to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. These things comprise the definition of who and what I am, and they should inform every thought and every action, every moment of my life. If that scares people, so be it. If anyone feels that my beliefs should be kept out of politics, they can try to find a way to keep me from voting. But I think that everyone must search their own presuppositions, and fundamental beliefs. We each have our own decision-making paradigms, and I have a hard time believing that anyone can truly say that they leave their personal beliefs at the door when they vote.
I may have a more thorough conclusion to add, but I know some of you have been waiting for weeks now, so this will do for now.
(For those wondering, it looks like Prop 8 did pass by a small margin.)
posted by Aurenande | 6:16 PM
|
1 comments
