Roger Williams, the First Amendment and the Presidential Campaign

Throughout the Bush era, I have witnessed a blurring of the line that separates church from state. So I am not surprised by the news that our presidential candidates plan to attend a California megachurch forum together in August. This marks the first time the candidates have agreed to a joint appearance. I recognize that faith influences political decision making, but as a Rhode Islander, this news gives me pause.

In 1620, the Puritans fled religious persecution in Europe and arrived in the New World. But it wasn't long before many of the persecuted became persecutors. Roger Williams was expelled from Massachusetts simply because he dared to think expansively about his religious beliefs. He went on to settle in Providence. Along with Anne Hutchinson and others, he founded the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Then, in 1663, King Charles II granted the colony the most liberal charter of the entire colonial era. Its most famous passage bestowed upon the people of Rhode Island "full liberty in religious concernments." King Charles had expressed a willingness to "experiment" in order to ascertain "whether civil government could consist with such liberty of conscience." This was the "lively experiment" upon which the Rhode Island government was based.

In May of 1776, Rhode Island became the first colony to break with the crown and the state's charter became its constitution. The colony refrained from ratifying the federal constitution until 1790, the last of the thirteen to do so. Rhode Island insisted that the U.S. Constitution contain the same assurance of religious freedom the colony had enjoyed for 127 years.

The first words of the first amendment are not about freedom of press. They are not about freedom of speech. They are about freedom of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Over the years, the Supreme Court has dealt carefully with separation of church and state issues. The Court once addressed a case here in Rhode Island involving a publicly-displayed nativity scene. Even in this bastion of religious freedom, we still struggle with drawing the proper line between church and state.

It's hypocritical for the religious right to be hyperventilating over state-sponsored religion by the Taliban and Islamic extremists while ever so gradually allowing the state to encroach on our "full liberty in religious concernments."

The two presidential candidates have been careful to have their megachurch forum co-sponsored by Faith in Religious Life, which is a multidenominational group. But this Rhode Islander still has concerns. Will Senators Obama and McCain appear on stage together at a political event surrounded by symbols of one religion?

Comments

[meanguy]

senator, i'm sure you're aware that the phrase 'separation of church and state' generally attributed to jefferson was actually 'cribbed' from roger williams, who wrote of

"[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"
sadly, lot of people don't know about roger williams, a baptist theologian, being a spark for religious freedom in the colonies, and an inspiration to the framers

[mickeyrat]

Lord, a voice of reason on Huffpo.

Well said, Senator. (I think once you get the title, you get to keep it?? ;-) )

I just finished a new biography of Ahmadinejab (brand new--the author is quoting from statements made less than a year ago by AJ). The degree to which the Islamist hardliners in Iran parallel the Christian right in America is downright scary.

I'm not sanguine about the future. I'm afraid that we're too far down the path to avoid a religious war. And I know that there are Christians in America who will welcome that war with the same bloodthirsty fanaticism as those in Teheran.

[vietveter]

These churches are so obviously active in their

god = good government quest that it is now time to

remove their tax-exempt status.

If they want to play; let them pay

like the rest of us.

[StephenDedalus82]

I wonder how long it will be before a vocal atheist, of any color or gender, will be able to run for president.

[Retrofuturistic]

If our government really supported the separation of church and state, politicians would not accept contributions from religious entities.

Tax-exempt churches and religious "leaders" such as Rick Warren and James Dobson, who are rich because of their tax-exempt status and their willingness to prey on the poor and the uneducated, should not be permitted to make political contributions OR host political events. There should be a government­ally-impos­ed limit on how much money religious predators can accumulate, unless we want the most powerful people in the nation to be the Dobsons and the Falwells.

Dobson keeps ranting about how he is going to "endorse" someone. Shouldn't that nullify his tax-exempt status?

The candidates, if they want my vote, should know better than to attend events sponsored by religious institutions. I will vote for an independent before I will vote for someone who panders to the Religious Right, no matter how much I want the Republicans out of there.

[Caddisfly]

As an atheist I an agahst at the intrusion by ANY religion into political life. As far as I am concerned these religious groups are going to get a lot of us killed. They all think (know) they, and only they, have the one true way to what ever it is they believe exists after death. Your statement above about the persecuted becoming the persecutors is the one that should be burned into one's mind.

[Marlyn]

"Will Senators Obama and McCain appear on stage together at a political event surrounded by symbols of one religion?"

Is the issue "one religion" or just "religion"? It seems as if Obama is interpreting the Constitution as saying that it is ok to support all religions, while supporting just one is prohibited.

I strenuously object to such an interpretation. If one religion is prohibited, then how could more than one be acceptable?

[meanguy]

so, the government's position should be that ALL religion be prohibited?

[frustratedinohio]

The issue is separation of church and state. So politics and churches do not belong together. But if politics is comingled with a church, then all faiths should be represented.

[LCRover001]

I am a firm believer of separation of church and state the gov should stay out of the church and the church out of gov.

What appalls me about some of these religious zealots is that they pump millions of dollars into elections every year, shouldn't the church be using this money to help the poor and misfortunate?

If churches continue to use their money for political purposes they should have to pay taxes that goes for pastors, priest, spiritual leaders or what ever they want to call them selves.

If they want to behave like lobbyist they should be taxed like them. Only churches and pastors that do not donate to political campaigns or back candidates should be exempt from taxation, because they are the only ones who are keeping them selves separate.

On top of that no government funding should go to churches, unless the government is willing to send equal amounts to each individual denomination and different religion. The church should stand on its own and if the government wants to aid the poor and misfortunate they should put that money into the programs we already have to do so.

[arkgrfx61]

LC that would make too much sense.

[Marlyn]

"What appalls me about some of these religious zealots is that they pump millions of dollars into elections every year, shouldn't the church be using this money to help the poor and misfortunate?"

And now Obama proposes expand Bush's unconstitutional faith-based initiative to make these churches a permanent part of our government by giving them money to perform social services that should be provided by the government directly. THIS IS WRONG!

[starboymikey]

It's hypocritical for the religious right to be hyperventilating over state-sponsored religion by the Taliban and Islamic extremists while ever so gradually allowing the state to encroach on our "full liberty in religious concernments."
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­_

It's only wrong when *they* do it, or ... "don't do as I do, do as I say."

[Rog49Thomas]

You missed a fundamental point (The choice of the word fundamental is deliberate).

When they do it, it's wrong 'cause we know that we're right. And God only loves us.

[acv]

Mr. Chaffee, I support your apprehension on this megachurch meeting. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. We seem to be forgetting that.
It all starts somewhere, next they'll want to teach Creationism in school, oops they already are or are trying hard. See Bobby Jindal's great idea: giving students the choice between the scientific theory of evolution and the (theory?) of the Book of Genesis, aka – Creationism. This way the student can make the most informed choice, IN SCIENCE CLASS! It's called Religion, why does it have to challenge science, and why should we allow it to be inserted into our children’s public education and disguise it as something else when it’s really a religious belief, which is very safe in this country, as it should be.

[NABNYC]

All the great people were born in Rhode Island. (North Kingstown myself).

Here is my analysis. Long before there was any government or any religion, people were born with a brain, and their brain allows them to think and to believe or not believe. No religion, no government, no mulah or priest or shah or Senator "gives" anyone any rights to think, believe, or not believe. Those rights are inherent in the human body at the moment of birth. The question is whether the people ever gave away, to any government, the right to dictate to people how they should believe or think. And the answer is a big no.

The constitution gives the federal government extremely limited authority to act in extremely limited areas: they are to defend the country, run the post offices, set up an interstate road system, and manage commerce. In at least 3 of 4 they're failing. There is nothing in the constitution or the law that gives the federal government (or politicians) any right to ever involve themselves in any religious issue. Their blatant disregard, that pandering to the churches, giving my tax money for the establishment of religious programs, is all unconstitutional.

And secondly, isn't it funny that politicians claim they have some unique insight into religion, they are peculiarly qualified to preach to the nation on the subject, when as a group (author excepted) they are so corrupt.

[benjaminblue]

Jesus saw through the Pharisees' self-promotion as they strove to appear holier than those around them. And I believe he sees through Mr. Bush's convenient Christianity as well. It is time to restore the separation of church and state; there is enough hypocrisy by which to measure the worth of our present or potential leaders without bringing the supposed strength and sincerity of one's faith into the equation.

[Dave24]

Grounds that are maintained, owned, or paid for by federal money should remain religion-free; zero taxpayer dollars belong in the bank accounts of any religious institution for any reason; and the ideologies of politicians cannot, in any way, be imposed through public policy.

The role of all US officials is to uphold the Constitution, and in so doing, the citizens will be protected with respect to civil liberties. Moreover, the role of the president is not to protect the American people: it is to uphold the Constitution, as stated in the Oath of office.

Separation of church and state is not only essential to freedom and liberty, but it also, albeit paradoxically, is good for religion. In secular society, the citizen is free to worship any god or superstition without any penalty, and likewise can abstain from such beliefs.

Ignorant politicians who believe they have a right to rewrite the Constitution (be it an amendment against gay marriage or blurring the line between church and state) are dangerous, pure and simple; and unfortunately, these ignorant politicians represent the majority of the ignorant populace who elect them in the first place.

McCain and Obama should stop pandering by saying that they read the bible, and they should start reading the Constitution instead.

Aggravating.

[meanguy]

well, i have read the consitution, and this is what i see..."the congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

haven't seen anything about the forum at saddleback that would 'establish a religion' or 'prohibit the free exercise'...care to enlighten me?

[Vern58]

As a direct lineal descendant of many of those original Rhode Island founders , i applaud you Mr. Chaffee for having the courage of your convictions to stand up and take a stand. People need to look at the issue this present campaign is bringing up.