Church and State?
4-28-04
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
This line in the Constitution is commonly known as the “separation clause” – separating church from state. A better name for it is the “establishment clause”. The Constitution doesn’t bar religious people or religious institutions from intervening in matters of government. The Constitution just prohibits the government from “establishing” any particular religion or interfering with the free exercise of faith. It’s a one-way separation: the government is “separated” from church, but church isn’t “separated” from the government.
I think we’d all agree that when the Protestant churches and preachers started to agitate publicly for the government to abolish slavery in the early 1800’s, that was a good thing. When in the 50’s and 60’s the churches agitated for the end of segregation in the South, that was a good thing. Without the intervention of the churches, those old racist laws might still be on the books today. Martin Luther King Day is a federal holiday celebrating a Christian minister who refused to “separate” himself from the affairs of government. His legacy reminds us of what “separation of church and state” does, and does not, mean.
But there are plenty of church interventions in state affairs that are more controversial today. The Catholic church is now telling people like John Kerry, who support the right of a woman to choose whether or not to continue or end a pregnancy, that they can’t take communion. (I’m very proud to be part of a church that welcomes pro-choice people, and everybody else -- even the Pope -- to our communion table!) I don’t like the way that Catholic leaders use their constitutional right to influence legislators about family planning issues. But I am grateful that they, and all other religious groups, have that right.
And with that right come consequences. If a large amount of a church’s time or money went into lobbying for legislation or supporting candidates, it would lose its nonprofit status. It could still be a church and do religion as it pleased, but pledges to the church would cease to be tax-deductible. Short of these limits, there is plenty of room for a church to influence the government while keeping its tax status. The real limit is not the law, but the conscience.
One of the many marks of the genius of our Constitution is that by banning the state from interfering with or promoting religion, our nation has become one of the most religious on earth. This fact is forgotten by those who want to engrave the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls, or by those who so vigorously defend the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. This fact is forgotten by those who mistakenly claim that our “Founding Fathers” wanted this to be a Christian nation. They forget that the less the government is involved in religion, the healthier religion can become. Want America to be “under God”? Go back to the original Pledge of Allegiance, which didn’t mention the deity. Want religious morality to thrive? Leave Bible verses off the walls of government buildings. Want children to commune with God? Don’t require them to pray in public schools.
The “Founding Fathers” were not the traditional Christians they are purported to have been by so many conservative Christians today. Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe Jesus was divine, didn’t believe in the literal resurrection, nor did he believe in the Trinity. He produced the Jefferson Bible, a very thin book which excised all supernaturalism from the scripture. John Adams was a Unitarian. These Presidents, and the others of the Founding Fathers who were Deists or religious free-thinkers, would be thrown out of conservative churches today as heretics. Many of our “Founding Fathers” were religious mavericks, even as they valued religion. They understood that the way to wipe out faith was to have the state endorse it. That’s what happened in Europe: many nations have state-sponsored churches, and the result is that only a minority of Europeans practice any religion at all.
So we can’t hide behind the Constitution when it comes to deciding whether or not the church should be “political”. For me, it’s not whether, but how! How can we make our congregation into a place where respectful, honest, informative dialogue about political and social issues can happen? And how best can religious communities take stands on political issues? I think the church is one of the very few remaining contexts in which citizens gather to discuss anything of depth at all. Our society is atomized: we’ve hidden ourselves in living rooms in front of televisions. Political dialogue by citizens has devolved into little more than rabid harangues on talk radio. If thoughtful, civilized discussion of political issues isn’t possible in a church, where can it happen? And if religion doesn't interfere in the business of the state, which other social forces will take its place?