Separation of Church and State
Religion/Philosophy
The separation between Church and State, is a greatly mis-understood issue, that many Christians find limiting, unfair, anti-Christian, even silly at times.
However, it is a serious issue, that has to be viewed through the lens of history and the conflicts that have occurred through the centuries, in order to grasp the implications.
Here in Canada, we have a multi-cultural society, that seeks to respect diversity. Protection is given to minority groups, so that they are not forced to abandon their distinctive beliefs, and cultural inheritance. It's far from a perfect system, and not without problems. It hasn't always worked, but lessons have been learned from the mis-treatment of native children (residential schools), and the infamous Mt. Cashel sex abuse scandal (Catholic orphanage).
In the United States, the issue is much more controversial, due to the enormous political clout of the
religious right , and the
melting pot approach to cultural diversity. I will draw from their experience, to illustrate a point.
Fundamentalist Christians have attacked Jewish centers, attempted to poison municipal water supplies, bombed abortion clinics, and assassinated abortion providers. The members of the Christian organizations perpetrating these crimes seem to be convinced that the forces of truth wage a perennial, cosmic battle with the forces of falsehood, and that they face the challenge of protecting Christian truth by any methods available. That they are allowing Jesus cross to become Mithras sword does not occur to them. http://www.religioustolerance.org/relhateex.htm Jesus taught the
Ethic of Reciprocity . It is often expressed as "
Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you. " He also taught us to
love even our enemies , but all to often, the opposite is practiced by those who claim to follow him.
"
..sometimes religion motivates violence, and sometimes it is used, even manipulated, to justify violence. There also is violence unrelated to religion that gets religiously charged because the conflicting parties happen to be of different faiths. " Rev. Shanta Premawardhana, Interfaith Relations Director for the National Council of Churches USA
There is a great deal of debate over exactly what the Founders intended by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Patrick Henry wrote the original draft of the First Amendment, using the words, "fullest toleration in the exercise of religion." But James Madison was determined that nothing other than "free exercise" should be written here. And he told us why: A state which could "tolerate" could also prohibit. This clause states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The most common interpretation of this clause, by most scholars and jurists, is based on the a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. In this letter, Jefferson wrote the following,
"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, 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."
It is easy to understand why Jefferson and the Founders were hesitant to mix Church and State. The Founders were all of European ancestry, and Europe had been rife with religious wars for centuries. Many states were actually run by either the Catholic Church, or a Protestant faith, especially Lutheranism.
These states tolerated little to no dissent on the subject.
Individuals who refused to convert could be tortured or even killed. According to Steven Kreiss, writing for The History Guide, this is because of religious tensions, "
Between 1560 and 1715, Europe witnessed only thirty years of international peace. " Many of the people, who journeyed across the Atlantic to live on the new continent, risked their lives and chose the dangers of the wilderness to escape this atmosphere of intolerance.
All of this was fresh in minds of the Founders when they were writing the Constitution. They did not want their new country to share in the fate of their European counterparts.
Add to this the persecutions that arose in the Colonies themselves. Evidence is found in the "
blue laws ", still on the law books in many States, but no longer enforced.
Examples: "The Code of Sir Thomas Dale," of 1611 (Virginia) Dales Code has been chiefly remembered because of the penalty for blasphemy, which was the thrusting of a bodkin through the blasphemers tongue . Sabbath observance was enforced by whipping , and speaking against the Trinity or the Christian religion by death . (H. J. Eckenrode, Separation of Church and State in Virginia, 6. Richmond, 1910).
The New Haven Code of 1656
Profanation.To profane the Lords Day in a proud, presumptuous way was a capital offense. "
Christians " who are trying to tear down the wall between Church and State, are not behaving like true Christians in the Biblical sense. Ecumenism
in the name of political power , is not the "
unity of the Spirit " (Ephesians 4:3) that God desires.
In their great rush to oppose secularism, they have been blinded to a greater evil - apostate, persecuting, theocracy. Conservative evangelical Christians have joined forces with the power their forefathers labeled anti-Christ (Catholic Church). This is a slippery slope, back to the tyranny and horrors of the inquisitions.
Do we have to relive those experiences, and let history repeat itself, or can we learn from the lessons of history? Some say the separation, was never intended to stop the Church from controlling the State, only to keep the State from controlling the Church. However, there has never been a time in history when a Christian theocracy, did not result in persecution. It didn't matter if the Church in control was Catholic, or Protestant, intolerance of minority positions, persecution, and violence were the results.
Christ himself, was crucified by the State
because it was being manipulated by the religious leaders of his day . The names and the faces have changed, but it is still the same old game - lets keep them separate.
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws, which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between Church and State." (Norman Redlich)
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20001009/redlich Ken Rich
kengrich@yahoo.ca
http://indiegospel.org
updated by @ken-rich: 11/11/15 07:17:59AM
