You don't have to be a Constitutional scholar to know that one of the basic tenets of our governmental structure is separation of church and state. The framers of the Constitution were well aware of, and fearful of, the curtailment of individual rights if the religious institutions were allowed to control any aspect of government. It was that environment which they wished to escape when they and their ancestors came to the East Coast and founded our nation.
The American legal principal of separation of church and state is, of course, embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution: "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." The concern of religious involvement in government has, it seems until recent times, been a long-standing concern of American citizens. In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson expressing their concern over the lack of governmental protection of religious liberty and against governmental establishment of religion in the Connecticut Constitution. In response, Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and 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." This reference to the "Wall of Separation" is repeated frequently throughout American History. The essential concept has been reaffirmed numerous times by the United States Supreme Court.
One must question, then, how it is that this "Wall of Separation" has been allowed to so significantly crumble in present-day American society. While it may be true that religious institutions are not permitted any government-sanctioned ability to legislate anything affecting our rights as Americans, and while it may also be true that our government does not sanction the practice of any particular religion, there is a certainly a tacit policy in effect of allowing religious beliefs to dictate the rights of, and affect the civil liberties of, Americans on a daily basis. One would suspect that if our Founding Fathers were aware of this growing influence in American society they would likely be turning over in their graves.
The never-ending battle over abortion rights is but one such example. The continued effort to restrict those rights is one which is consistently advocated by right-wing Christian religious extremists, driven by their religious beliefs that abortion, in any form, is murder. We have seen, just in the past month, how the wall of separation further crumbled when those advocating the positions taught to them by their churches held hostage certain aspects of health care reform. Whether you agree with health care reform or not is not the issue. What is the issue is that the shaping of policy which will affect the lives of every single American was influenced directly by conservative Christian motivations.
Abortion, a right confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Constitution in Roe v. Wade, is not the only right affected by conservative Christian influences. The continued disparate treatment of gays and lesbians in this country through a myriad of policies restricting civil rights and governmental benefits (such as the right to marry, to serve openly in the military, to share in social security with their partners or spouses) is also a curtailment of rights that is solely based on religious motivations. Those groups who advocate the formalization of these policies are exclusively motivated by their religious beliefs. The recent stir in the press regarding the opposition towards potential Supreme Court nominee Elana Kagan (whose sexual orientation, though not relevant to the issue, is not even confirmed) on the basis that she may be homosexual by such groups as Focus on the Family is a stellar example of this type of religiously driven influence on the government. Undoubtedly, those very same Senators who held health care hostage in exchange for limitations on coverage for abortion will also vote against Kagan or any nominee who may actually be gay.
Similarly, government restrictions on funding for such things as stem-cell research are entirely based on religious beliefs. While one may argue that there is no civil right to stem-cell research, the impact of such research certainly can affect the lives of thousands of Americans who have been suffering from debilitating diseases and paralyzing injuries. It is solely religious beliefs which motivated the restrictions on such research during the Bush administration; those conservative beliefs do not sanction the source of harvesting stem-cells just as they oppose the rights of women to obtain abortions in this country. The result is that our nation lags behind significantly in developing new treatments for such diseases and injuries.
While our Constitution certainly guarantees each American the right to practice his or her religion and to adhere to the beliefs that each individual may have, the intent behind the concept of separation of church and state was to avoid restricting the rights of citizens based upon religious motivations. The hypocrisy of present day American life is that notwithstanding these built-in safeguards to protect against exactly that which is occurring, as a result thereof in many instances we, as Americans, have fewer rights than citizens of present day European countries where the church is not locked out of governmental involvement. One wonders whether Jefferson and his compatriots, were they around today, would cross the Atlantic in the opposite direction.
The fundamental principle of "you cannot restrict my rights because of your own religious beliefs" is no longer fundamental. Yet it remains in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As an American citizen, my wish is that we speak up to insure that this wall of separation be rebuilt, and that we not be curtailed or restricted in our ability to grow as a society solely because of the beliefs of any one religious group. The intent behind the Constitution was to protect individual freedoms. If you do not believe in abortion, you can choose to have a child, but don't tell other women that they must see the pregnancy through because of your religious beliefs. You aren't raising the child that will result. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, you can have that belief, but don't tell people who love each other that they can't marry because they are gay; it doesn't affect you. If you don't believe in stem-cell research, then don't contribute to institutions that conduct it. However, people with neurological disorders shouldn't continue to suffer because your religious beliefs oppose research developments that could help them. We talk constantly about the fear of fundamentally religious terrorism from abroad. What we don't realize is that we, as a nation, have allowed our own country to be ruled in part by our own domestic religious fundamentalism.
Eric Simpson: Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Fundamentalist 'Voodoo'
The influence religion has on our government is a very valid and important topic.
However, how can anyone read the First amendment, which is quoted in the article, and not read the plain english. The GOVERNMENT shall NOT interfere with religion.
It does NOT say, religion shall not interfere with government.
I'm not a 'high profile divorce attorney' but I can read plain english.
If we are going to discuss/debate or fight over the role of religion in government, that is fine.
But we still cannot make the constitution say what it does not say.
The article is a great topic. It just has a phony premise at the start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/20/us/bush-s-call-to-church-groups-to-get-untraditional-replies.html
Who are you talking about here: Catholics? Evangelical Protestants? Mormons? Pentecostals? Whom do we target to rebuild that wall?
This single clause protects religion from goverment NOT goverment from religion. That was never the intention of those drafting the first of our first freedoms in our Bill of Rights.
There are multiple examples of how this is obviously so. Amoung them are facts like most of the States in the opriginal 134 colonies had established religions at the time, it was a national religon that was the concern. Or the fact that the bill of right contains all aour freedoms that check goverment power. Speech, assembly, the press & yes religion werte all concedered checks on an abusive goverment.
Not the other way around.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed in that it attempts to create a loophole in which religion can manipulate government but not the other way around. If we followed your argument to its logical conclusion, John Doe of religion "A" can basically restructure the laws to fit his religious mandates, as long as he can do it through indirect channels (AKA lobbying and propaganda), there by forcing the government to dictate and Jane Smith of religion "B" lives her life, regardless of her religious or moral mandates.
Go back and read both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No where in either document does the word "God" or "Lord" appear. Like I said before, the Founding Fathers were not stupid men.
But that is the fundamental problem. We have not yet conclusively answered the question of whether or not a wall should exist! There are many you think it does and many who think it doesn't. Until we resolve this, it will continue to haunt us in the justification of laws that allow religion to show itself in our laws.
Personally I think it revived itself when they allowed "under God" to become part of the Pledge. That set a dangerous precident. It should be removed as well as "in God we Trust" on our money. Then, perhaps, we can start to clean up other religiously motivated laws.
When fundamentalists are screaming about Roe v Wade (instead of actually trying to solve the socioeconomic problems that cause women to seek abortions) they are asking why we invaded a sovereign nation for no good reason, why do allow huge companies to play roulette with our money, why does the richest nation in the world allow people to starve and freeze to death in our streets.
Religion is not co opting politics as much as politicians are co opting religion.
Sorry, they are NOT asking.
The separation clause has nothing to do with disallowing people to participate in the Democratic process because they develop their values based on religion.
It is VERY important. Look at the texas board of education if you have any doubts.
This is the sad truth. The Moral Majority perfected the policy. We need ethical leadership in this country. Thank you Fred Silberberg for your leadership!
Everyone needs a boogyman I guess, evangelicals seems to fit the bill for this guy.
Evolution is taught in school, by the way, as is gravity and math. Because they are facts. You're fundamentalist tilt shows by the fact of even mentioning it.
Evolution is taught in schools as a science- which it is. Creationism and intelligent design are being pushed by a number of insidious means, including textbooks - remember Texas and their Board of Ed? And lawsuits claiming freedom of religionis being restricted because it is not being taught.
Then there is the little matter of the evangelists constantly pushing Christianity on soldiers in the military. It wasn't just a problem in the Air Force Academy. It's become endemic.
Ben Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754
Unlike same-sex marriage, where I believe there is only religious based objection, abortion does have some non-religious objections to some people.
You mentioned trouble knowing when a viable fetus has a right to live.. At what point did you have the right to live?
I personally believe we are a person in the womb when the very first brain cell is created.
Pro-Life community does not typically claim the arguments for "personhood" of a fetus at any stage.
Rather we argue the established science that it is indeed a Human Being and alive. The argument for "personhood" seems to be a moving goal post for pro-choicers have retreated to specifically because it is #1. more sbjective and slippery #2.Embryology is quite settled on when Human Life Begins
The author is attempting to conflate what religious believers in general wish the goverment protected with the imposition of religious belief.
This is like saying laws against theft are unconsitutional because "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is in the ten commandments.
Goverment restrictions and religious restrictions overlap all the time. Just because something is ALSO a religious belief dose not mean its not also good public policy.
Ironically enough this goes for the "Seperation of Church and State" itself: The very concept of Seperation of Church and State is uniqueley western and Christian in historical development. It is premessed on nothing less than the words of Jesus when he says "Render on to Ceaser what is Ceasers, Reander onto God what Is Gods".
The idea that somethings are beyond the purview of the State (that we have fundemental rights based outside goverment authority to limit or infringe) is a basic tenant of western democracies and intellectual thought.
The ONLY real argument is what those rights are, what are the outer limits of those rights, and are those rights ligetamently rooted in the consent of the governed.
Once you wipe away the hyperbole - you will realize this is a boundry dispute NOT a philisophical divide. The opinions and democratic expression of religious believers are as valid as any other public policy dispute in our democracy.
Societal laws are mostly based on "The Golden Rule", which has been around long before Judeo-Christian or Mosaic laws. You only need to read about the earliest forms of laws, such as Sumerian Proverbs or the Code of Hammurabi which were entirely secular and are older than Mosaic laws by many centuries to understand that. "Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc., etc." have been around long before God told Moses they were no-no's.
It's when you start deciding societal laws, such as banning same sex marriage for no other reason than it violates a particular religious sects ideals that it is no longer hyperbole. It then becomes a violation of one of our countries core beliefs, that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"Most are not valid for society as a whole"
- this is simply a blanket assertion, what laws are you talking about. Once again just because X or Y law is associated with religious belief does not mean its not a valid secular law. You make the point yourself when you talk about Sumerian Proverbs or the Code of Hammurabi (FYI - neither can be said to be "entirely secular")
Catrayna (writes)
" It's when you start deciding societal laws, such as banning same sex marriage for no other reason than it violates a particular religious sects ideals that it is no longer hyperbole"
Once again you make a blanket assertion that its "for no other reason than it violates a particular religious sects ideals". This is not what advocates of traditional marriage maintain nor the multiple courts that uphold trwaditional marriage laws maintain.
Only narrow secularists ever seem to maintain that X or Y law is simply a religious ideal and has no validity in the secular realm. It it secular and non-religious arguments that were advanced and argued that made abortion illegal in the first place, likewise the definition of marriage, or laws against theft, or usuary, or prositution, or gambling, or pornography, and on & on.
Look to the Texas School Board. There lies your answer.
The ignorance of the parent is spread to the children. Now the Texas School Board wishes to spread that ignorance to everyone's children. If they are allowed to do so, that wall won't just be crumbling, it will be rebuilt using pages from the Christian Bible.