Separation of Church and State in the USA
I am an American. I am also a Christian. I am not a fundamentalist, and I do not believe it is appropriate or somehow necessary to force others to follow what I believe. I may discuss my beliefs at times with people who are interested, when it is appropriate, but I do not believe in coercion.
There is something that I have found disturbing in US politics, and specifically among a certain subset of Christians, who have very strong beliefs (not a bad thing), who are very vocal (not always bad, but needs to be done in an appropriate manner and in an appropriate location), and who are very pushy and insistent that others follow their beliefs (that’s what I’m ranting about).
I lived outside of my home country for seven years, and it is only upon my return that I have noticed this, although looking back, I can see quite clearly that this is a movement that has been growing in strength for many years.
Many of these presumably well-meaning people like to make the claim that America is a Christian nation and was intended to be one by the men who founded her. Remember, I am a Christian as I say this; I don’t believe this belief has any foundation in reality. History does not back it up, and most of the time directly contradicts this claim.
Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were Christians. Some were Catholics, some were Protestants of various traditions, and still others were Deists or essentially non-religious. What they all agreed on was that they didn’t want any of the others in their group to be able to tell them what they must believe, how (or if) they should worship, and who (if anyone). They all agreed that the State having any control over such things was dangerous and only caused division, strife, and persecution.
None of them seemed to think that religious beliefs should have no place in the public discourse, only that those beliefs should and could not be allowed to coerce anyone else into following their tenets.
I find it hard to believe that any of them would have a problem with someone saying, “Merry Christmas,” or “Happy Hanukkuh,” or “Eid Mubarak Sa’id.” I do believe all of them would have had a problem with the State demanding that everyone say, or support, any one of them.
Thomas Jefferson spoke his mind very clearly when he said, “I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
I happen to agree. I don’t want you to tell me what I must believe or follow any more than you want me to do so.
Even if they were to push an agenda that I might agree with from a standpoint of religious doctrine, I cannot agree with those who would try to force a religious based political agenda on the masses, at least not one that is based solely on an ethic birthed in a faith that is not shared by all who are to be affected. This is true whether being pushed by Imams in Iran, hard line Rabbis in Israel, radical Hindus in India or the Religious Right in the USA.
Obviously, some laws are based in religious concepts, but that does not make them religious laws. Truth is truth, whether it is spoken by a religion you agree or disagree with, or by someone with no religious affiliation. Pretty much all of us, at least in the statistically important sense, would agree that murder and theft are generally bad things. These have foundations in religion, but may also be argued from other standpoints like logic and respect, and are not the sole domain of one religious viewpoint. In a pluralistic society, that is reasonable.
What is not reasonable is saying to an entire society that your viewpoint is obviously the one on which the society was founded, even though your viewpoint didn’t exist as recently as 30 or 40 years ago (to be generous), especially when history itself requires a rewrite to support the idea.
If people who subscribe to a strong religious viewpoint want others to take them seriously, it would behoove them to look into ways in which they may engage their culture in a conversation, respectfully sharing and giving reason for why their way is better, rather than trying to force that way upon the masses through legislation, thereby causing great alienation, anger, and making people run as quickly and as far from these viewpoints as possible.
To anticipate the first negative comment… Yes, I realize that my desire not to be dominated by your viewpoint demands that my viewpoint dominates yours in at least one sense; I won’t be dictated to by you based on a religious view that I do not agree with.
However, if you approach me politely and with respect, I might listen to what you have to say, consider it, and perhaps moderate my stance or even accept one I have not previously embraced.
I will not force you to follow any of my views, other than that I will request that you be respectful and polite, and I will enforce such on my personal blog (unless by your grumpiness you make yourself look particularly bad, in which case I will probably leave it up as a good example of bad behavior).
Nice post Matthew. I think a fundamental principle of Christianity is “free agency,” where people are free to make their own choices (and live with the consequences). Forcing viewpoints is not really a “Christian” thing to do.
However, I think it’s wonderful to have an open dialogue of how you feel about your particular faith. That is, after all, what helps all of us get a better understanding of this human experience.
2 Timothy 2 (King James Version)
24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
Mathew,
Does Christianity offer political and economic solutions?
Christianity only deals with beliefs and social matters (opposition of pornography legalization, prostitution, abortion etc)
but life is way more than that. You need a complete way of life.
If I understand you correctly you also seems to believe that laws are not religious. What are they then? I will claim that laws are a form of moral, and moral is based on religion or whatever people call their substitute for religion.
A religious system may have different morals for governments and individuals. Jesus for example taught that even if divorce is evil the government shouldn’t forbid it. (See Mark 10) Another example is Paul who wrote that while the government has permission to revenge evil* (Romans 13:4) individuals don’t (Romans 12:19). But religious neutrality in law is still impossible.
I know that you as a Christian don’t believe that it’s possible for man to force someone else to get saved (Romans 10:9-10). I know that the Bible call nations “a drops of a bucket” (Isaiah 40:15). But that doesn’t mean that the government should be able to legislate evil and forbid good without resistance from Christians.
* some classes of evil, see the rest of the Bible
I once heard a quote that one who believes in freedom of speech “Will defend someone who is yelling at the top of their lungs their ideals in a public place, ideals which you would yell at the top of your lungs to oppose.” I have thought about this often. We live in a nation where we should have freedom of speech, and even if that speech is against what I say and think I will support that freedom.
Now it comes to appropriateness of the time and place it is a whole different mater. I think that there is a huge difference between public and private events. I thought it was shameful for those few democratic protestors to sneak into the republic convention and protest during the peaks of the speeches. It was NOT their place. I also think that if someone goes through all the trouble and expense to put on a parade (Such as a famous church does each St Patricks day.) they own that parade and they should be able to pick and choose who is allowed to be in their parade, not forced to allow a group of Homosexual rights people to basically have a protest in the middle of the parade as a court recently forced them to do. If the Gays want to have their own parade, I have no problem with that, they can pick a different time or place. Also if a pastor wants to say something to his church about who to vote for, he should be allowed, unlike todays laws.
On Friday I went to the state fair, there were two different church groups who rented a space there, they decided that they would try to tell people about God. I also have no problem with this, they used their money, and they were following the rules. Now was this the best place, I think not, will they actually do any good for the Kingdom of God, maybe they will make a few people think. For years I have thought that relationships were the best way to win people to Christ. You simply invite them to events, show them the community and tell them the Gospel and let them decide. But any decision that is forced is NOT lasting or sincere, and so many Christians like to force such decisions.
If you notice in the quote you have from Thomas Jefferson he says sect. As you know this is a difference within the same religion. He could not imagine that our nation would be anything but Christian. He just did not want one denomination to be favored over another.
I do totally agree that we should not force our Christian ideals on non Christians as a form of law. There are too many laws in our nation. We are NOT a free nation. Anyone who leaves for a year or more and comes back will tell you that. There are others that are less free but also others that are far more free.
You also had the point of the “Merry Christmas” greeting. I have found that it is used far less. The other day I went to Costco they had two isles of “Christmas” stuff, so I decided to look really closely, there was not one item that was Christian based, and not one location did it say the word Christmas. They are a business, they can choose what to put on their shelves, but me, as a Christian can choose where I will buy my decorations, and even if they have the best price it will NOT be from them. Two years ago I heard that Macy’s decided to make bring back Christmas and in all of their ads they stopped all of the holiday stuff that others do and actually, to the shock of the left, mentioned Christmas. And you know what, their sales went way up and they had their best season ever. These are all private originations, they can choose what they want to say, they will be held accountable by the general public for what they do and say though.
To me the fundamental thing is that we have LOST the conversation in this nation. People are divided and in most ways very close minded. The force of the debate on both sides has caused people to become callous to the point that they are stuck in what they think. A hard attack will just cause people to put the shields up and resist, only a slow, over time conversation based on logic will ever convert most people in this climate. (This is for every issue, religious, political and even for choice of OS.)
I agree with your article, for the most part. Looking to the intentions of the founders should be a valuable part of the judicial process when it comes to cases of constitutional law. I feel that stripping the intent behind the constitution from the text leads to tons of situations where court decisions seem to contradict common sense. Hopefully it would also mitigate so called “legislating from the bench”…
[...] (See the photo to the right, taken on one of the few days when I had more hair them him.) Here is his blog entry, if you could read that first it will make a lot of sense. I mostly agreed with [...]
@verb:
Christianity does touch on politics, economics. as well as farming and even personal hygiene. That said, many of the Old Testament laws were for a specific people at a specific time, and thus don’t necessarily apply to us directly. However, I would argue that the beliefs, morals, and values are the most important teachings (aside from the death/resurrection). Because they define how you will act in all areas of life, whether it be politics, economics, or what you’re going to wear today, or feed your kids.
Read the bible and find out
@Matt:
Interesting article. I don’t agree on several points, but I’ll just cover the one I think is most important. You mention:
“Truth is truth, whether it is spoken by a religion you agree or disagree with, or by someone with no religious affiliation.”
While this is true, how do you know what is “Truth” and what isn’t? There are many conflicting world views, where one says doing x is wrong, while the other says not doing x is wrong. How do you reconcile that? For instance, was it right for Nazis to kill Jews? According to them, they were a lesser race that should be culled for the betterment of society. Then you have Atheism which provides no support for any kind of values or morals, and would thus be justified in doing whatever they please. I’m not saying that Atheists are immoral, just that belief system provides no foundation for being moral. You say that murder and theft are generally considered by the majority to be bad. Well, millions are murdered every year in the US, and yet it is something that the majority supports. And sadly, Australia just legalized murder too. Some might say, “Ah, you mean abortion? Well, that’s not murder.”. Says who? By who’s definition are we working with? You say we shouldn’t force our morals on others, but that’s what laws do. They effectively push the morals/values of the ruling party on everyone else. So what are we to do?
@David:
I’d say that just because it is difficult to know whose version of things is true doesn’t mean that there isn’t an actual truth (that everyone has an approximation of).
You can give specific examples of such conflicts (such as Nazi Germany and abortion), and people can make persuasive arguments either way (which I don’t imagine would actually help this discussion). I don’t think that people having different viewpoints means that there is no central truth any more than I think that if everyone agreed that 1 = 2 then it would be so.
The place of laws in this is difficult and I without a lot more thinking, I don’t think I can say much intelligent about that.
Only took nine comments before Nazi’s came up. I know not a record for your blog, but dang funny.
LOL. Some topics bring Godwin’s Law into action more quickly than others.
Matthew, I am an American as well, and I am an atheist (small-a, in that I am a-theist, which is to say “without a belief in God”, as opposed to “decidedly believe there is no God, even though I have no proof”), not an agnostic. I live my life without a need for belief in a higher power. I know how to love and be loved while I’m alive, and I don’t need some carrot of an eternal afterlife or stick of eternal punishment in order to live morally.
I came here to ask for your perspective on those who propose that the supposed decline in morals and family values has a direct correlation to the reduced influence organized religion has had on western society. I see that several people have already been here quoting scripture and claiming that laws have no basis without religion (a boringly common logical fallacy), but I haven’t seen your own responses.
What is interesting to me, from a sociological perspective, is that the folks who propose that the US was founded as and should still be “one nation under God” (a catchphrase for tighter coupling between church — evangelical church, of course — and state) don’t seem to see how similar they are to fundamentalist Muslims who propose a return to Shari’a law.
For all of those “under God” folks who happen to read this, please, just for a moment, imagine what it would be like if… I dunno, Mitt Romney, or Tom Cruise somehow managed to take office and convice Congress to make a Constitutional amendment that tightened the links between their particular church and the government.
If you’ve managed to play this thought game, then I congratulate you, and I ask you to consider how those who don’t share your belief system feel when you make similar proposals. It might be hard, but you must surely recognize that you are in the minority when you consider your position compared to the other 6.6 billion humans living on this plant. Do you suffer from so much arrogance that you assume that most of them are Wrong and you are Right?
And Matthew, I wonder what your thoughts are about those who feel that the answer to “moral decline” is more religion? Personally, I feel that it has more to do with not enough personal responsibility (i.e. nanny state), and dissolution of community. When the whole town will hear of it if you’re a jackass, then there is social pressure to behave. When you’re just one person among millions of unrelated and anonymous people, then there’s less incentive to act morally.
Hi Mike,
I think your comments are accurate. Much of what is being called the moral decline is more likely the result of a breakdown in personal relationships within community. What to attribute that breakdown to is still a matter of great discussion, however, going back as far as 1950 and Reisman’s The Lonely Crowd, there has been much research done which looks into the increased sense of and actual state of isolation within society.
It can be as simple of a breakdown as, “No one knows me here, so I’ll act as I will.”
That said, some of that glue, at least at times, has been religion, but not in the exclusive, “Only my way is right,” sense. Rather, in a community where many share common values, often based on similar religious beliefs (eg. Judeo-Christian, but not exclusively), there is also a shared sense of right and wrong. When the makeup of a society changes, its underlying beliefs and norms do as well. Whether this is the result of “people forsaking religion” or “religion chasing people away” or just the simple addition of new immigrants who do not share the same beliefs is a question for further study and would certainly be a factor.
Most people who make simple claims like this don’t realize two things; first, that every society going back to the earliest records we can find makes the claim that the current generation is less moral than the previous, and second, that there are issues at work that are generally more complex than one or two push-button style comments or bumper-sticker slogans can adequately convey.
I’ve known non-religious people with outstanding morals and religious people with frighteningly disappointing morals. The trend has more to do with a person’s choice and desire to love and respect the people around him than with their religion, but it is certainly reasonable and justified, and shown by the evidence, that many people gain that love and respect as a result of their beliefs. That is, however, not the only potential source, and contrary evidence supports the claim that people do not always gain love and respect for others via their religious beliefs, but can often become arrogant, judgmental, and cruel (usually from a misapplication of the chosen religion’s stated tenets, but…).
I don’t want to make it sound like I don’t know non-religious jerky people, or that all religious people are hypocrites. On the contrary, I have known both. What I find is that most people, on either side of the belief issue, want to be “good” and “kind” and want to treat others well.
Also, I might note that there is much to be said about the changes in American society having potential cause in the Industrial Revolution and the transformation of society from predominantly rural and agrarian to urban and industrial…big moves, from a place where people are known to where they are unknown, the anonymousness of the individual in the early (and sometimes current) factories, and so on.
Oh, I thought of a something else that could be having an impact.
Stress. The lifestyle of the urban industrial or post-industrial age person is far more busy than the lifestyle of that of the traditional farmer. Life used to run in cycles of work and rest. Before electricity and television, people got more sleep. These changes make a person tired, stressed, and tend toward more grumpy and anti-social behavior. It also leads us to short, staccato bursts of communication instead of well-thought-out sessions of clarity and listening, followed by thought before response.
Mike: If you mean “tightened the links between their particular church and the government” literally, as in the church as an institution and the government as an institution, that would be unbiblical so I would oppose it no matter what church tried to do it. Based on my prejudices* when it comes to atheists I assume you meant “based the laws on the morals of their particular church”. In that case we don’t have to imagine. We already live under laws based on alien belief systems. My country, while still formally Christian, base their laws on humanism and socialism. People does propose laws based on belief systems other than mine all the time. Often those laws pass. They did for example change the marriage law to include gay “marriage”. So yes, we know how you feel when we dare to propose laws based on our beliefs instead of yours. Can you imagine having those alien laws pass? Because that is what we face.
One last thing: I don’t suffer from arrogance. I enjoy it were much.
(In case you were serious you deserve a real answer: Truth doesn’t depend on how many people believe something. If it did, I could have proved that you are wrong based on that you atheists are the minority, while we who believe in a god are the majority)
* I know exceptions myself, and I know that you could be one. By having low expectations to people, even people that seems to oppose the unbiblical nanny state, I get pleasantly surprised instead of disappointed.
Sveinung, it seems strange to read you being “under” or “facing” a law which neither compels you to do something nor prevents you from doing something.
All it does is give some people the freedom to do something the previously couldn’t.
It’s difficult to see how it could be considered an imposition on anyone (other than those who feel they themselves have the right to impose restrictions on others).
You’ve been dugg.
Paul: The law do compel people to recognize those “marriages” by actions. Doctors are compelled to assist lesbians wanting insemination. Even if they can refuse to do the procedure itself they are obliged by law to help them prepare. The effect is the same in other areas as well. (I don’t live in USA. USA may be freer)
The same law also has portions that makes divorce easy. (That is not new, but still alien) That prevents me from setting up a marriage contract that makes divorce hard. It also prevent Muslims from setting up a marriage contract according to the rules of Sharia. (Hard for the wife and easy for the husband to get a divorce I think)
It doesn’t give the homosexuals more freedom. They were already able to live in the same house, share their property, etc before this law. What has changed is that the government now encourages it and force it on the rest of us, including those who oppose it.
Even if I avoided those areas where this law have an effect I will still be living in a nation (even more) under Gods wrath: Not only do the politicians believe they have the right to define marriage, they even “defines” is wrong.
“Doctors are compelled to assist lesbians wanting insemination.”
What difference do the woman’s attractions make to her choice to be artificially inseminated? Single women are not prevented from it on the basis that they need a man in the house or some such nonsense, so why should lesbians be prevented from it? Oh, and yes, I think doctors do have to be non-discriminatory in this regard. There was recently a lawsuit when a doctor discriminated against a woman in this way. However, that has nothing at all to do with equal marriage. Whether a lesbian has a partner or not, and whether she is married to that partner or not is irrelevant. She’s still simply a woman who would like to be pregnant without a man’s help.
OK yes, that might go against Sharia law for the woman to be able to request a divorce. Such a terrible thing for us women to have rights though.
And it most certainly does give GLBTQ-identified persons more equality. Think of all of the benefits your partner and children (and step-children if your partner had a previous marriage) receive from your workplace because you’re married, not just a live-in couple. Think of your right to see your spouse when he or she is in the hospital. They don’t have that right without marriage.
It isn’t forced on you, because you’re not forced to get married to someone of the same sex, and you’re not forced to perform same-sex marriages (ministers are certainly permitted to opt-out of this). The most it forces on you is that if you choose to conform to the social norm of giving a wedding present after a marriage, you may have to buy a wedding gift for the lesbian couple next door.
I don’t know what your god’s wrath has to do with the country. I also don’t know where you found the one true definition of marriage. Biblically, polygamy (well, specifically polygyny–polyandry is still banned) is perfectly fine, but I think most Christians would have an issue with it.
Mackenzie: Thank you for pointing out that the marriage law is forced on employers: they have to give the same benefits to the partner as real married couples. The same for hospitals. I never said I would support the insemination of a single woman. If you want a law that forces doctors to help inseminate lesbians then you place them under your alien laws. Thanks you again for all these great examples! (I hope you are still reading Mike)
Ministers are at the moment permitted to opt out of “marrying” same sex “couples”, but strong forces, among them a party in the current ruling coalition, want to change the law to force them. There are however no law that forces me to give a “wedding” present to them, so at that point you are correct. (But there are also no social norm to give wedding presents to anyone except family in my country)
While I personally don’t agree with Sharia I believe in Muslim couples right to create a marriage contract that conforms to Sharia when it comes to divorce. How is it our business to prevent a Muslim woman from signing that contract?
If you don’t know what God’s wrath can do with a country I suggest you read the Bible. Btw, my definition of marriage is from it. While the Bible don’t give the state the right to ban polygyni it is still immoral. Just like divorce. Please read Malachi 2:13-16, 1 Cor 7:2, etc. Also: Husband and wife are made one in marriage. How can you be one with many?
[...] that I was very intrigued by. One of the topics on this blog had to do with a touchy subject, the separation of church and state. As I read this I was more and more in awe because this person has wrote EXACTLY how I feel about [...]
Excellent post.Keep up the smashing work,You should definitely have to keep updating your site
@Sveinung:
Uh, the Bible doesn’t say polygamy is immoral. It actually seems to be pretty in favor of it. Oh, and um, as a recovered Catholic, I have read quite a lot of the Bible.
Kind of confused by putting “couples” in quotes. Are you suggesting that there are threesomes or people marrying themselves? Of course we’re talking about couples here!