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:
Hmm.
I have a lot of comments...but I'm going to with hold all of them until I can write a full response tomorrow, but I'm going to point out two concerns I have with your argument, which I will elaborate upon tomorrow. :)
I agree that the separation of Church and State is not explicitly written in the constitution. However, we do know from original letters sent by Jefferson and others that a separation is indeed what they wanted. Furthermore, it's the way the courts have interpreted the Constitution, and that's the judiciary's job--to decide what is and isn't constitutional (in terms of the supreme court) so in terms of that, separation IS law because law is what the court's define.
Second, I feel very uneasy when people start telling each other what to vote. As an atheist, I would never think to tell another atheist how to vote or even how I recommend they vote. I may discuss the issues, argue and debate, but as an atheist there really isn't any similarity between me and another atheist except that we do not believe in the existence of a god. We may easily hold different moral values, or political values, or social values. Atheist does not always equal liberal. As such, Christian values do have a lot of cross over, though of course there are many interpretations. I do not take offense when religious people vote yes on Prop 8 because they believe that to be a morally correct vote. I take offense when their pastor or clergymen tells them to, and we know--because it was reported on--than many did. It's not the religion I distrust in that case, it's the use of religious authority to try and sway congregations one way or the other.
Lastly, and here I will elaborate upon much more tomorrow, I think you are absolutely right. Those of us who are non-religious (even if we're spiritual or something else) have a great difficulty understanding the pervasiveness of religion upon someone's life.
I'm not saying leave out your religions morals when you vote. But because church and state are different and separate (more on that tomorrow), religious moral and state moral are different. By which I mean this: the STATE moral behind gay marriage was settled over 40 years ago (more on that tomorrow) but the RELIGIOUS moral is very clear: the bible says, one man and one woman. It turns out that the state doesn't care. Marriage is for citizens (again, more on that tomorrow) regardless of the details. THAT is what I mean by a difference between religious morality and state morality. When this case reaches the supreme court, and it will, they will rule in favor of gay marriage because of past precidence and because of the 14th amendment. What proponents of Prop 8 were trying to do is illegal, regardless of whether or not you think it's right. Again, that is what the difference between state and church means--illegal does not always mean immoral, and immoral does not always mean illegal. If you need more proof, just consider adultery--it's not illegal, but not committing it is one of the ten commandments, and even I as a secularist would agree than one should not commit adultery (though for other reasons than a god). Again: immoral is not always illegal in this country. So there is a difference between your personal morals and the state's laws, and that has to be considered while casting a ballot.
Okay, I totally ran my mouth off but I was on a roll! I will summarize this and add to it tomorrow. :) And feel free to respond if you want, and I'll write back for that too!
Hope you're doing well! -M
Post a Comment
<< Home