Debate: Should Religion and Moral Views Be Handled Politically?
Posted: Saturday, July 05, 2008
by Jim Gordon
the intimate couple
The answer to this question is a resounding "Yes!"
Although our knee-jerk reaction is to quickly answer in the negative, thoughtful consideration must make the careful observer answer, of course, "Yes!" Religion and moral views must be handled politically! For most of us, almost immediately, the classical phrase "separation of church and state", comes to mind as some sort of proof text, and a rationale to separate moral views from politics. However, there is a gross misunderstanding of this phrase attributed to Thomas Jefferson: it was actually meant to convey the need for protection for the free exercise of religion. In addition, because the function of politics is concerned with the formation and enforcement of laws, it is critical that we recognize that these laws, in fact, are each a reflection of a moral view! Therefore, religion and moral views must be handled politically.
The famous quote (thank you, Thomas Jefferson!) "separation of church and state" is usually used to remind us that religion (and by extension, moral values) should not be politicized. What few people understand, however, is that this quote is taken completely out of context and actually supports the opposite view!
Thomas Jefferson's famous quote is taken from a letter written to Danbury Baptists in 1802, where he called for a "wall of separation" between church and state, or by extension, religion and politics. However, do we remember the context? As with so many things in this Information Age, we have the content but have removed the context, completely missing the point!
Here's the context: this new united republic, this fledgling union of states, was formed by people who had been subject to tyranny in their mother country. In Europe (for example), the state church totally precluded free expression and religious liberty. To escape this oppression, people ventured to the New World (the 13 Colonies) to enjoy (among other things) the pursuit of religious liberty and expression.
As a result, one integral component of this new republic had to be freedom of religion and conscience: the Founding Fathers realized that their republic--the state--should never control or hinder religious expression. Jefferson, the main architect of the Declaration of Independence, was assuring religious leaders that there would be a wall of separation between the state and the church so that the state, in generations to come, could never use its powers to limit the church and all religious freedoms (as happened in other places). Unfortunately, most people today have come to believe the exact opposite! "Separation of church and state" is almost universally misunderstood as the basis for a rationale that limits rather than protects religion. Oh, the irony of it all! The phrase was meant as a guarantee that religious freedoms would not be limited or controlled by the state! As our Founding Fathers understood, the state's job was to actually protect religious freedoms.
In all free democratic societies, governments are given the mandate to uphold individual freedoms including the freedom of religion. These freedoms are protected through the legal system and the laws that have been developed with every law reflecting a moral view of some kind. Since politics is simply the operational side of governments, it becomes clear that, at the end of the day, religion and moral views must be handled politically! Are we opening a Pandora's Box? Perhaps, but religion and moral views must be handled politically by protecting and enshrining freedoms, not by exerting state control.
This Article has been viewed 726 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (9 total)Well said, Jim. Kudos to you. Keep up the good work!Thank you Mark for the words of encouragement. From a person with as many articles as you, this is appreciated!
"However, do we remember the context? " I go back to my prior article of my school days when the professor stated TJ out of context and when I pointed it out she said, "hey, I'll teach what I want and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it". Yes and at a very well known religious college. Good work.Isn't it amazing, Robert, how a quotation out of context can be made to say the opposite of what the speaker intended? Thanks for your comment.
Jim, enjoyed your article and read it with relief. So glad you put this out there!Thanks for your comment, Jane. By the way, I noticed you have an article referencing Spurgeon and Isaiah 61. He is one of my heroes!
Hi Jim, very good points! Well laid out. Facts are always hard to argue, even if some would disagree. Great job!!! Blesssings to you! TeresaThank you, Teresa. I just read your article about your son's dirt-biking accident. Praise God, it all worked out! All the best!
Thanks Jim, It's great to hear some truth once in a while. Thank you so much for clearing up a saying which I have heard spoken so many times, and now I know it was out of context. I am not an American but I hate it when people speak untruths about a country which God raised up and prospered hugely to demonstrate His blessing on a constitution which was written to honour Him and His law. Great stuff.Thanks, Terence. I'm actually Canadian (and would love to come visit the UK sometime)! I also admire my American friends, and the genius of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Thank you so much Jim. I am a born again christian and the manner in which our government is handling the issue of 'Seperation Of Church And State' is truley against our right to free speach! Your article is truly a blessing and great work.I have joined your fan club and would hope you would join my fan club as well.Thank you, Bikerlady!
I have joined your fan club too!
Jim
Separation of church and state meant to protect religion? To protect something, you have to be attached to it, like a protective coating of paint brushed on wood, or a coat of wax on a car. The separation of church and state means literally that. The two are separate. They neither support nor suppress each other. I do agree that although the constitution has declared them separate, people have been trying to bring them together ever since the constitution was written. The pope and the president visit each other, judges rule on religious questions all the time, etc. In spite of all of this, let's keep things very simple and clear. The definition of the word protect is very different from the definition of the word separate.Thomas Jefferson believed that religion was something between each individual and his god. What Jefferson was going for was to convey the belief that it wasn't up to Congress or the Executive branch to have a hand in religion, thus protecting religious beliefs and convictions from government persecution. The phrase "seperation of church and state" is merely a shortend version of the Establishment Clause, which is the 1st Amendment - Freedom of Religion, Press and Expression.... "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." What needs to be remembered here is, that while the Pilgrims who originally came to this country to escape the religious tyranny in England, were a fairly tolerant bunch, they eventually came to believe in the ways of the Calvinism of the Puritans. The Puritans came to this country for the purpose of establishing a bible commonwealth. They were intolerant and banished dissenter's and herectics, who could legally be punished by burning. It is because of this religious intolerance and violence that the Establishment Clause came to be. So, yes, the seperation of church and state was meant to protect religion, in all of it's various forms and the followers of each.Hi Sarah,
Thank you for your meaningful comments and elaboration on the concepts of protecting religious freedoms and also protecting people from the intolerances of religion!
JimCertainly clarity is the key word here.
If you can't always be right...at least always be clear!
Thanks for your thoughts.
Jim
Seperation of Church and State protects religious freedom - that is, it protects the right of every individual to believe what they want.
Equally, it protects every individual from having other people's religious beliefs forced on them through law, by making law seperate from any particular religion (obviously allowing one religion to unduly influence law would be damaging the religious freedom of members of all other religions).
In this practical sense, it is a severe limitation on the powers of religion over the population as a whole, whilst at the same time being a strong defence of individual religious freedom.Thanks for your insights and clarification, Ben.
Jim
Jim, Your article is outstanding. In fact, I wish I had written that! Too bad the activist judges cannot abide by the constitutional intent. Excellent presentation.Thank you, Joel, for your kind comment!
The truth is that when we look at the original contect of something, new light is often shed that illuminates present problems!
Jim
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.