| CDHS | Printable View |
Preaching Heresy: A Different View of the Church/State Separation Controversyby Tim Gordinier, PhD Public Policy, Institute for Humanist Studies
This is the recap of a talk given at the May 11, 2003 CDHS monthly meeting.
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple" – Oscar Wilde. Tim Gordinier, PhD, Director of Public Policy and Education, Institute for Humanist Studies, spoke with us on "Preaching Heresy: A Different View of the Church/State Separation Controversy." Not surprisingly, he argues that the proper relationship of government and religion is one of separation. What may come as a surprise is the complex history and underlying motivations of separation. By describing the relevant ideas and the constitutional history of church/state separation, Gordinier illustrated how gradual a process it really was. It was not always the dominant view and opponents did have lawful positions. He also discussed some arguments against separation and his response to them. Some definitions: Ceremonial Deisms. Vague references to God, lacking theological dogma, made in official acts of government (In God We Trust, Under God, congressional chaplains). Separation Doctrine. Government cannot support the religious message of any religious group. It must otherwise treat them as any other private organization. Bill of Rights. First ten amendments to the constitution guaranteeing individual liberty. The first amendment provides freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause. One of two religion clauses found in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." Five arguments against church/state separation and responses to them: 1. The Framers were Christians. They wanted to promote religion in the public sphere. Most were not Christians, but Deists (belief in the existence of a supreme being arising from reason rather than revelation – no theological dogma). Jefferson, Payne, Morris, Wilson, Franklin, etc. Washington was probably a Deist but went to church for social respectability. They engaged in god talk for political reasons, as often occurs today. Gordinier observed, it’s "not smart to diss the deity if you want to get elected." 2. The Establishment Clause only restricted government action on the federal level. The states and localities initially were free to do whatever they wanted regarding religion. This is true. Originally, the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. Until the 14th amendment passed after the Civil War, states were free to follow their own constitutions and bills of rights. Many states had no Establishment Clause. This meant they could force their residents to support a church. There were blasphemy laws, blue laws and compulsory church attendance. Some states gave nondiscriminatory aid to churches (if they were Protestant), while four states had separation: Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania. However, even before the 14th amendment, the other states gradually began to separate church and state on their own. The last state to disestablish was Massachusetts in 1833. As Gordinier pointed out, the 14th amendment, by universalizing the bill of rights, kept states "from backsliding on the progress they had already made on their own." [The 14th amendment, Section 1, includes the following: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…" And Section 5 provides that "The congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."] 3. Even on the federal level, the Establishment Clause only prohibited a national church. Debate often centers on whether the Establishment Clause prohibits favoritism only or also require government neutrality between the religious and nonreligious. Do congressional chaplains, the motto "In God We Trust," and national days of prayer serve as evidence that the Establishment Clause should be interpreted narrowly? Ceremonial deism is often viewed as acceptable because of tradition and lack of religious dogma. However, the tradition in not as old as many assume. "In God We Trust" first appeared on money during the Civil War and "Under God" was added to the pledge during the McCarthy era of the 1950s. Besides discriminating against nonbelievers, it promotes monotheism over polytheism. The phrase "So help me God" is not a requirement in the oath of office. Washington simply added the phrase (again, don't diss the deity!). Government chaplains have existed since the beginning, but the practice faced criticism even then. They are unconstitutional and clearly violate the nondiscriminatory criteria. Gordinier said, "apart from these minor glitches, the federal government has been pretty consistent when it comes to adhering to the doctrine of separation of church and state." For example, the federal government has never passed blasphemy laws, blue laws, compulsory church attendance, or religious oath requirements. Gordinier observed that "the most ardent theocrats of the 18th century wanted separation of church and state on the federal level so that they could enjoy nonseparation on the state level. That is why they included the Establishment Clause. These early states rights advocates did not know that their insistence on federal noninterference would come back to bite them in the end (the 14th amendment)." However, the 14th amendment wasn't the only force responsible for the states' move toward separation. They were moving in that direction even before it was mandatory. Besides Rationalists and Deists, separation attracted Evangelicals and Baptists, who felt pressured by other religious groups. James Madison supported a bill in Virginia in 1777 to make even nondiscriminatory aid to religion illegal in Virginia. This provision, supported by both religious and nonreligious groups, became the basis for the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Said Madison: "A true religion does not need the support of the law. No person, either believer or unbeliever should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind." 4. If there was separation of church and state, it was meant to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church. Humanists value separation doctrine for the protection it affords when religion becomes a dangerous irrational force. But there were many who viewed government as the oppressor of religion. Each view is valid. However, regarding protection of the church from the state: a) It shouldn't mean having your cake and eating it too. If religious groups want tax breaks, funding for social programs, etc., they should to adhere to the same requirements (health, safety, nondiscrimination, etc.) that other organizations do. b) It shouldn't mean that government noninterference with religion is total. Religious exemptions are not a constitutional right. They can be granted by the legislature unless they become an exclusive religious privilege unavailable to others. For example, an exemption from military service should be available to others who hold pacifist beliefs, not just specific religious groups. Another example would be that religious groups do not have the right to practice human sacrifice. They have to obey the same laws against murder that everyone else does. c) It shouldn't mean the two views are not compatible. If you protect the church from the state, the converse is also true. Gordinier describes a view of church/state separation that is comprehensive; it protects government, religion and the nonreligious as well. 5. There was separation of church and state, but it was usually driven by hostility toward religion, not by an attempt to set up a neutral zone. Hostility toward religion has sometimes fueled separation. In early America, people with a religious agenda clearly found church/state separation to be as attractive a solution as nonbelievers did. It was sometimes motivated by power struggles between denominations, rather than a desire to create a neutral zone (Blaine amendment). Fundamentalist Christians favored separation until the 1950s. This was because, before that, all the religious schools were Catholic. Gordinier concluded with these observations: It is important to acknowledge there has always been a rival tradition opposing separation. Many States did not practice separation and were not required to. Instead, separation gradually evolved. While we view separation as the stronger tradition, we cannot rely solely on the Framer's intent. The Founders clearly had their share of flaws (bigoted, sexist, slave owners). Because of this we need to look at the benefits of separation rather than focus entirely on the founders’ words. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment originally gave African Americans equal rights, but has since expanded to include other nationalities and women. Examples like this describe the Constitution as an evolving document that benefits from continuous reinterpretation.
| |