The Christian church was, of course, born in the days of Roman rule. When the new Christian religion finally became accepted officially by the empire (after a few centuries of alternating tolerance, intolerance and persecution), and as the church evolved toward a structured hierarchy of governance headed by the Bishop of Rome, the emperor was very much involved in church appointments. This continued on through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, as the church jousted for power with various kingdoms and empires in Europe. Popes appointed kings and emperors, and kings and emperors appointed popes. If temporal and spiritual powers were not one and the same, they were certainly very closely linked. Nothing really changed after the Reformation. Rather it merely created more players in the struggles to affect people's beliefs and behavior. As a prime example of the mixture of power, the king of England was also made the head of the Church of England, and Queen Elizabeth holds that position today. A 17th century group of dissenters called Puritans began to seek relief from an over-dominant English church with a risky voyage across the sea to a faraway land called America, and that is where the story gets really interesting for me.
Williams came to Massachusetts colony like the rest, to escape the over-reaching arm of the English church. However, he had had experiences within the English court system that gave him a broader view of what he felt was wrong. While others came to set up their own system of equally-intrusive religious dictates, Williams recognized the need for individuals to be allowed to live and worship as each saw fit, even if such decisions violated accepted practices of the majority. I won't labor you with more detail of the book; alas, you may want to read it yourself. Nonetheless, the point I'm making is that, given the many hundreds of years of struggle between the powers of the church and various heads of states as a historical background, one can more readily understand such a system being established immediately upon Europeans' arrival in this new land, and why it was such an extremely radical idea to suggest religious and temporal powers ought to be completely and legally separate.
So how does this concept play out today? All nice and settled? Hardly. As private citizens of the U.S.A., we can each vote as our individual desires and dreams dictate. However, many of us (as we wish) are members of churches or other religious groups, and as such our thoughts are influenced by our beliefs. When a group of citizens with common beliefs on a specific topic become large enough to exert influence in the political scene, it is sometimes impossible to separate their religious views (the church) from their political votes (the state). Nor should it be necessary to do so. However, no matter how strongly our moral beliefs are held, we need to remember that ours is a secular government, set up that way by our wise forefathers who had seen the abuses caused by the mingling of church and state, and who desired that people of different cultures and faiths should reside peacefully together, bound by a common sense of liberty and the rights of all to pursue their dreams.
This is a much bigger topic than I am able to grasp, but I enjoy contemplating its ramifications in our time. We can all think of current social issues that grate against our moral and religious belief systems. How do we, as citizens of a certain faith, vote on issues that will impact behaviors and lifestyles of others? How far can one group of citizens impose its values upon others, while still supporting the ideals of "liberty and justice for all?"
I have more questions on this topic than answers right now. If you have anything to add, I'd like to hear it. Thanks for reading.
1. I think you're going at this subject quite well and reaching solid conclusions. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.
2. Confusion understandably arises because the constitutional principle of separation of church and state is sometimes equated with a political doctrine that goes by much the same name. That political doctrine generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that approach are many, but two primary ones are that it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and, further, it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly "in play" in the political arena, so we're not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other's religious beliefs in order to decide on some political issue. This political doctrine, of course, is not "law" (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is). Rather, it is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct ourselves in political dialogue. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.
ReplyDeleteWake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law (rather than the history) of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
Thanks, Doug, for your comments. I'll read the treatise you suggested from WFU.
Delete