The Religious Right and the dismantling of the Wall between Church and State

2017 marks the 226 anniversary of the United States Bill Of Rights ratified December 15, 1791.  A list of rights that the Founding members of our country decided to enshrine in our most sacred documents that created what we know as American Democracy. When the founders crafted this document they started with the protection of the freedom of Religion, Speech and Protest.  These protections  were important enough to be the first words that they wrote when declaring the rights that we have as human beings; rights that were derived from that first revolutionary document - The Declaration of Independence.  

The first amendment states:

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 Classic  interpretation of the First Amendment maintains that  the Government (understood as the Congress) cannot interfere with, show preference, or establish a “State or National” religion.  It also gives each person the right to worship as they choose.   

Out of this amendment grew the principle of Separation of Church and State.  Thomas Jefferson would further develop this principle when he wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802:

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.

Thomas Jefferson goes further by proclaiming that religion is a private matter  “Which lies solely between a Man and his God”  thus the Government has no place in that relationship.  But Jefferson goes farther telling us that “the legitimate powers of Government reach actions only and not opinions”  Which can be understood to mean that the domain of Government is to pass  judgement on actions not the beliefs or opinions of its citizens.  Finally he reiterates the first amendment  and appends to it the famous words “thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”   From the earliest founding of our country the separation of Church and State was meant as a protection for the Church from interference by the State.    This prevented  the State from dictating what priests, preachers, rabbis or imams could say in their pulpits or how their congregations could worship.   But in the 1960s another interpretation came about because a Catholic was running for President and he had to reassure the Americans where his loyalties lied.  This interpretation has become the most accepted view of the First Amendment,  the interpretation that the separation of Church and State created a protection for the State from the Church.

John f. Kennedy said:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote, where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

So here we find that the wall between Church and State was a protection for both Church and State.  As John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, affirmed that religion must remain firmly on the other side of the wall - separate from the State - having no influence on the decisions of the State.  This position was a reasonable evolution of what the founders had professed and envisioned.  The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion”  my emphasis.  For Kennedy this also meant that the State was prohibited from allowing “public policy” to be influenced by any religion which would constitute an establishment or a preference of the State for a specific religion.

Now in 2017 we are beginning to see that “wall” being slowly dismantled by proponents of the Religious Right who advocate the erroneous claim that America was established on Judeo-Christian principles and that the State has an obligation implied by the First Amendment to defend a person’s  right to exercise their religious freedom.  The First Amendment Defense Act is a bill that in summary states:

“Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Defines "discriminatory action" as any federal government action to discriminate against a person with such beliefs or convictions, including a federal government action to:

• alter the federal tax treatment of, cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke certain tax exemptions of any such person;
• disallow a deduction of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;
• withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or similar position or status from or to such person; or
• withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a federal benefit program.

Requires the federal government to consider to be accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of federal law any person who would be accredited, licensed, or certified for such purposes but for a determination that the person believes or acts in accordance with such a religious belief or moral conviction.

Permits a person to assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and to obtain compensatory damages or other appropriate relief against the federal government.

Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this Act against the Government Accountability Office or an establishment in the executive branch, other than the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, that is not an executive department, military department, or government corporation.

Defines "person" as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.”

The Argument is that the Government is violating the First Amendment by compelling citizens to act against their religious beliefs in the case of same sex marriage and FADA is a proposed bill that remedies the Government discrimination against these citizens because of the actions they take based on their belief in the traditional view of marriage.  This bill is being hailed by the Religious right as the first step to returning America to God.  But in my opinion the bill presupposes that the person needing protection is being discriminated against by the federal government because of his belief regarding the traditional definition of Marriage and seeks to create a prohibition against that discrimination.  However that assumption neglects to consider that the actions taken by the federal government are not triggered by the person “believing or professing” the belief in traditional marriage.  The actions of the federal government are triggered by the “action” of the person which then engages “The legitimate power of the government”.  Let me put that in plain words.  You might believe that “(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage” and that belief would be protected by the first amendment because the government can not tell you what to believe.  But when a person translates that belief into a specific action that violates the rights of another then the government can act to protect the rights of the other.    Because when a person’s belief spurs them to act in a way that violates the law then the government can act.  A person’s actions are not protected by the first Amendment when they are in opposition to the Law.   The Religious Right would have you believe that Congress can write a law to protect people from the consequence of their actions when they translate beliefs into actions - even if those actions defy the law of the land.  A law of this nature would be a perversion of the true meaning of the First Amendment and would be contrary to the common good.   

Society is now seeing a an erroneous interpretation of the documents that led to the founding of our country being put forth by the White evangelical contingent of the Republican party.  They maintain that the founders meant to enshrine Judeo-Christian ideals as the foundation of our democracy and because of that the government should recognize and promote Christianity ahead of all other religions.  This belief is in error.  The founders many of whom were Christians purposely left ambiguity in the founding documents.  Let us look at the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

The text speaks very clearly about God but there is no mention of Jesus Christ or God the Father in the text. The text simply states “Nature’s God”  recognizing the sovereignty of the creator over human events.  In the next part of the text the document proclaims the immutable truth:

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

Again the document makes no mention of the Christian God but only speaks of the deity in ambiguous terms.  The founders, although some were Christian, chose to speak unanimously as Deists and not identify one religious group. One must acknowledge the intent of the founders to place all beliefs on equal footing by their intentional ambiguity.  If the founders, who were Christians, wanted to enshrine Christianity as the favored religion why is there no mention of Jesus Christ in the Declaration of Independence?  

The history of our founding is one of people who were escaping persecution.  People who decided to leave their homes because the State and the Church had become one and the same and they were no longer legally free to worship as they chose.  Those pilgrims and their descendants would decide to never repeat that mistake and would enshrine as the First Amendment,  the free exercise of Religion unencumbered by the dictates of the state. It would become the wall which kept the State from interfering in matters of religion and so must be considered to be just as inviolate in keeping Religion from interfering in matters of state.

When Congress begins to make laws that protect one religion or the actions of a religious group;  we have firmly placed our feet on the slippery slope that will lead us to the place our forefathers suffered hardship and deprivation to escape.