U.S. CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATION

Reflections on the Upcoming U.S. Presidential Election

This July 4^th was the 248th birthday of the United States. From then until now, the people of the U.S. have debated various aspects of the Constitution, with Church and State Separation being a major one. And it is true during the current U.S. Presidential election cycle.

Consider the story of the writing of the Declaration of Independence which is instructive of how any great document comes into being, including the Constitution of the United States:

When a committee sat to examine the wording of Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration, the proud author was somewhat discomfited by their editorial revisions. Benjamin Franklin noticed his colleague’s distress and told him a little anecdote.

When he was a young man, Franklin said, he had a friend who had completed his apprenticeship as a hatter and was about to open up his own business. He was anxious to have a fine signboard and composed one with the inscription “John Thompson, hatter, makes and sells hats for ready money” over the depiction of a hat. He then showed it to his friends and asked them what they thought.

The first one remarked that “hatter” was superfluous, as “makes and sells hats” showed the nature of the business. The second pointed out that “makes” could be left off the sign, as customers were unlikely to be interested in who had made the hats. The third friend said that as it was not the custom locally to sell on credit, the words “for ready money” were superfluous, and they too were struck out, leaving just: “John Thompson sells hats.” “No one would expect you to give them away,” said the fourth friend, “so what is the point of `sells’”? Finally someone said that it seemed unnecessary to have the word “hats” on the board since there was the painted picture of a hat. So, the board eventually read “John Thompson” with a picture of a hat underneath the name.

Jefferson was much mollified by this story, and it was generally agreed that the committee’s editorial work had improved the wording of the Declaration of Independence.

The point of this little story is that when it comes to the idea of Church and State Separation, the First Amendment to the Constitution, like the story of John Thompson and his hats, is open to interpretation, and the debate has been going on ever since the document was written.

So, what DID the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights REALLY mean when they created those documents, especially the part of the First Amendment which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”? Did they mean to separate church and state entirely? Were politics and religion never to join in one’s life?

Let us first consider the idea of “religion.” For one thing, the United States has a godless Constitution. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution left reference to a deity off the parchment. The Constitutionalists also succeeded at not defining “religion” within their document. The operative phrase is “freedom.” To define is to limit. The Constitution is neither hostile nor friendly to any religion. It is silent. And here is its majesty and genius.

However, throughout U.S. history, some have attempted to put God and religion into the Constitution. A group called the national Reform Association reached its peak during the U.S. Civil War (The War Between the States, if you prefer), when thousands of Americans believed that God was punishing the nation because “He” was omitted from the Constitution.

And there are people today who in similar fashion, strive to put God into our public domain in various ways: in the public classroom, in the workplace, at the opening of meetings and ballgames, in the courtroom with copies of the Ten Commandments, in patriotic speeches, and in pronouncements by politicians running for office.

But let us think about what “law” might mean in reference to the First Amendment’s statement that “Congress shall make no law…” Are we talking about a higher law, a la Alexis de Tocqueville who “believed that the support given by religion to virtuous standards of behavior was indispensable for the preservation of political liberty” and “that religion gave people a taste for the infinite, which was essential to combat the greatest peril of free and materialistic modern societies.”

Or did the framers of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, so imbued by the Enlightenment era, intend to create a “piece of eighteenth century rationalist theory” a la John Locke, whom one critic described as a “political weapon of those seeking a businessmen’s commonwealth”?

Of course, what constitutes “religion” or “law” according to the Constitutionalist fathers remains open to interpretation depending on which specific topic we choose to discuss.

Take the particular issue of a religious test for those running for public office. Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution declares: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the authority of the United States.” But, the majority of today’s voters feel strongly that they want a religious person for President.

As the Rev. James Wall, editor of the magazine “Christian Century” states: “Given the nature of the country’s spiritual concerns, people don’t want to elect someone without spiritual values.”

Just imagine the chances of a declared Atheist running for President! One survey concluded that 69% of voters would not vote for a presidential candidate who did not believe in God. Presumably these voters were thinking about a Christian-type God, not one called Allah, Zeus, or the like! Yes, our Constitution forbids any religious test for public office, but as church historian Martin Marty puts it in relationship to religion: “In America’s heart there seems to be some of that.”

Well, as for our current presidential race, I will mark my ballot for the candidate who, formally religious or not, is the best person to lead this nation based on what I have learned about the individual’s overall qualifications. Granted, none of the candidates is perfect, but I believe that one of them is more perfect than the others. And as a registered voter, it is my right and duty to say which one that is in the privacy of the voting booth.

Indeed, today there are many hot issues concerning religious freedom in our country. None of them is particularly new. The debate goes back for generations. Just think of these issues:

prayer in schools

support of religious schools with public taxes

meetings of religious clubs on school premises

the right to preach and solicit religion in public

the right to honor your particular Sabbath and holy days (Jews and Seventh Day Adventists fought hard for this one)

the right to be a conscientious objector (even if you do not do so by affirming specific “religious principles”)

the right to worship the way you choose (however, not so in the case of the Native American Church and the Court’s refusal to allow its adherents to use peyote during their sacramental ceremonies)

the religious freedoms of prisoners (which provides reasonable opportunities for them to exercise their religion without penalty)

the right not to have community interests overcome your religious freedom (e.g. the right for adults to decide for themselves but not for their children to refuse health care unless there is danger to the community)

the right not to be taught “creation science” (the view that a god created the world in seven days, etc.)

the right of parents to provide the kind of religious instruction they deem fit for their children (which brings up the concern posed long ago by Justice William O. Douglas who said that “where the child is mature enough it would be an invasion of the child’s rights to permit such an imposition without canvassing his views.” Indeed, where do the religious rights of children come into play?)

Yes, there has been a long debate in the U.S. concerning these religious issues and so many others. But as long as this internecine fighting about religious issues continues, the longer the absence of dialogue and action on some other issues which I believe need attention by our governmental system. Issues like child abuse, abortion, crime, health care, deteriorating schools, economic disparity (especially for women, people of color, people living with physical and emotional challenges, the aged).

Unfortunately, politicians get bogged down in theological debates: the “My god is better than your god!” argument which some politicians and their supporters relish.

That is not to say that religious institutions should ignore social justice injustices. Indeed, the historic so-called “Social Gospel” where people took the principles of their religion to the streets, not just left them in the pews, has a firm hold on the American mind-set. This is not to deny that we also sought to be “religious” within the immediate context of the church community. This holistic, integrating attitude about what “religion” meant was involvement in “politics” in the sense of the meaning of the word “polis” or city state where citizens were expected to take a lively part in creating a better society. This approach toward “walking our talk” (to use the Rev. Dr. Marin Luther King Jr.’s words) can be an essential aspect of one’s faith.

It means to be involved in the world (to be prophetic) working within the political system to create a better life for more people And this church and state connection also means that each individual can have a centering belief or faith which guides one’s activist pursuits. One without the other is incomplete.

Theologian James Luther Adams wrote about such things in 1936 with these words: “These churches will affirm their belief that religion is futile and sterile unless it has direct and effective bearing upon the problems of human society. They will be unsparing in their criticism of the evils and injustices now existing in the world, and they will work unceasingly for a better social order.”

Indeed, we are a pluralistic society and I hope that those who want us to think monolithically on any social, political or religious issue will never control our nation. When it comes to interpreting the First Amendment in regard to religious practice, other Amendments, or the Constitution as a whole, shall we not agree with one analysis that concluded the framers of the Constitution “left their job half undone. They realized their own limitations, and they left parts of the Constitution intentionally vague for later Americans to interpret and amend…But what they left in is more important than what they left out. For they left a legacy in the monumental document that guaranteed democracy and set a standard for the rest of the world.” (Tim Grieve)

And so these are my thoughts this July 4^th, as my country of origin readies itself to elect a President in November.

NOTE: Don Beaudreau is the Ojo del Lago’s Lakeside Living editor, a member of the Ajijic Writers Groups, and the author of 11 books. He is currently writing a novel about Cape Cod.