Monthly Archives: September 2015

Church or State?

Posted on by
Reply

The mariner thought he understood the legal and philosophical intent of the separation of church and state. However, when he reads the news of the day, confusion seems to reign over the subject and affects everything from getting married, to pro-choice or pro-life, to the rights of execution and euthanasia – not to mention many other conflicts between citizenry and the Constitution of the United States. Consequently, the mariner is confused as well.

For the benefit of the reader as well as the mariner, he will go back to the beginning. As a legal basis, the Constitution of the US, written in 1787 and the Bill of Rights, written in 1788, says exactly:

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.

Denis Diderot was a French philosopher, art critic, and writer. He was a prominent figure during the Enlightenment and is best known for serving as co-founder, chief editor, and contributor to the Encyclopédie. Diderot was a partisan of a strict separation of church and state, saying in 1747, “the distance between the throne and the altar can never be too great“.

In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state”, as written in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

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 and State.

Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing, they did not have to fear government interference in their manner of worship. The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom. [Wikipedia – church and state]

For our purposes, make note of the phrase, “…that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions…” meaning that the government will not interpret or reinforce religious definition and will limit government action to matters of governance. The inverse of this, applying the intent to religion, means that there is freedom for any religion to practice and believe as they choose but religious opinion will not apply to matters of governance.

On the surface, the separation appears to be clear and distinct. Why, 277 years later, is the citizenry having so much difficulty?

At this point, the reader must tolerate the mariner’s meandering. To state the conflict succinctly, the confusion is caused by secularism. Secularism excludes religious opinion. This seems to be in concert with the 1st Amendment and Jefferson’s letter. But this is simpler said than understood. If we can travel back to the time of the Mayflower landing at Plymouth Rock (1620), we would be in the midst of the Reformation (1517-1685). The established church still was the law of the land in most intra-human activities. In fact, the Pilgrims combined religious opinion and governance into one authority. The political leader also was the interpreter of the faith.

Ever so slowly, it became clear that there must be some separation so that government could govern without having to judge every opinion raised by the common folk. There had to be rules applied to situations that were stolid and did not change with every change in opinion. This slow, evolutionary process continues today. We are not finished with the separation of church and state.

The role of government, with its authority to govern without opinion, has expanded to include virtually all elements of intra-human activity. One can get married in a government agency – without opinion, mind you. But one may also be influenced by opinions of faith. The religious element takes umbrage that the government can perform the same ‘action’ as the religion but without the religious opinion.

The mariner now understands why there is conflict. For the conclusion, we must wait for the movie version – perhaps released in 2150.

Ancient Mariner

 

Reverence is not Advocacy

Posted on by
1

Tim Pitt, City Council member in Knoxville, Iowa, recently wrote an angry article on facebook denouncing the intent of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The atheist organization was challenging the decision of the City Council to place a memorial art piece in Young’s Park – a government sponsored park – that included a cross similar to the crosses familiar in military cemeteries.

Knoxville

In Part, Councilman Pitt wrote:

Knoxville IA

Concilman Pitt continued at length to berate the organization for its disrespect of valid and reverent feelings for fallen soldiers. There is conflict in the atheists’ case because similar crosses are in many government cemetaries around the Country – including Arlington National Cemetary. Clearly, this is headed for the court system – if the courts choose to hear the case.

Broadly speaking, the atheists are a counterpoint to those who would establish a Christian theocracy, primarily religious conservatives fighting similar battles from the opposite side of the issue. Similar conservative events are Chick-Fillet, Hobby Lobby, the clerk in Kentucky who refuses to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples in spite of high court injunctions against the clerk, the insistance of creation history as valid history in public school books, vocal prayer in schools, etc.

The mariner believes those tangled in symbolic issues like crosses, Stars of David and even secular memorials, are distracted by irrelevant idol worship. Memorials, regardless of their shape, are simply memorials, perhaps suggestive of a legitimate association with religious reverence but certainly not a tool of proselytizing and, as Tim Pitt contends, not representative of a state church.

It is insane to separate church and state with a cataclysmic act like removing crosses from graves or religious icons from past sites of remembrance. Such an act would be comparable to ISIL destroying temples and historical artifacts. The rows and rows of white crosses only speak loudly of a long age of human desecration.

In 1982, a Vietnam Veterans Memorial was built in Washington, D.C. commemorating 58,272 killed in that war. There is no cross, yet the “wall” is one of the most powerful commemorations ever dedicated to soldiers killed in action. When it was built, a mother refused to believe that her son would be remembered among the tens of thousands who died. Her friends traced his name from the wall and took it to her; she clutched the drawing as if it were the American Flag at a military funeral. A simple wall as powerful as 58,272 crosses.

The point is this: The role of religion in society is changing as secular awareness grows in an age of information. There is no blame in this transition nor is there permanence in religious beliefs – else we still would worship the Gods of the Pantheon. The separation of church and state is a Constitutional requirement assuring religious freedom for all – and thereby preventing a “State Church” from existing.

It is not the crosses or Stars of David that are sacrosanct. It is the soldier buried in his time, in the way of his faith. The crosses, Stars of David and non-religious memorials are for us to remember the heavy price we asked them to pay.

Ancient Mariner