Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Thou shall not sponsor a state religion
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Randolph Baynton
Baynton, of Troutville, is a respiratory therapist. He is also a former Marine.
The question of the separation of church and state and whether the United States is a Christian nation has been of much concern lately. After reading Don Assaid's commentary of June 28, "Where is the tolerance for Christians?" I thought I'd offer a secular view.
Assaid thinks that the Christian majority is within its rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution to invoke the Christian God in public meetings or at school. After all, this is a Christian nation, with a Christian majority. But let's take a closer look.
Let's assume by "public meetings" we are not talking about a church picnic, say, but a meeting where government business is to be conducted, and by "school" we're talking about a government-supported public school open to students of every faith and belief. Let's be clear, as Assaid is not, because most of us understand that there is an important distinction between demonstrating your religious beliefs at nongovernmental versus governmental functions.
Assaid conveniently confuses his role of private citizen and his role as a member of the board of supervisors. He proudly asserts that he is completely indifferent if he offends anyone by praying to the Christian God. And, indeed, as a private citizen he can pray and offend all he wants. But in his role as a government official he is bound by the Constitution to be completely neutral in the matter of religion. Assaid knows this, because he quoted the establishment clause of the First Amendment in his commentary.
It isn't much of a stretch to suggest that the First Amendment means you don't begin your government meeting by an appeal to a belief that may exclude some of your fellow citizens. And while the Founding Fathers may well have begun their governmental business with an appeal in prayer to the Christian God, I would argue that they weren't ready to accept the full implications of the laws they themselves had written into the Constitution. After all, they weren't ready to accept that African Americans should be free, or that women should have the right to vote. But I doubt that the ghost of Mr. Jefferson is upset with how the Constitution has evolved in these matters of equality, justice, suffrage and religion.
The Bill of Rights was written to guarantee the rights of citizens against the government, not against other citizens. The "government" includes anyone acting in his or her role as a government official. I shouldn't have to remind Assaid of this, but the Bill of Rights does not pertain to the profanity and debauchery he sees all around him.
Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Jesus taught that there is a distinction between church and state, and that it should be respected.
Assaid suggested that we all reread the First Amendment. That seemed like such a good idea I reread the whole Constitution. What struck me is that nowhere in this foundational document do the words Creator, God, Jesus Christ or Redeemer appear. The only word of religious significance I found in the entire document was "Lord," as in "The Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven." Does it seem strange that these Christian men did not see the necessity of invoking the Christian God when laying down the fundamental laws of the land? Perhaps they had Jesus's teaching in mind.
It is clear to me that this is not a Christian nation. I don't see how the Founding Fathers could have made it any clearer that Congress was to make no law respecting an establishment of religion except to say it in almost those exact words. If you want to make the claim that this is a Christian nation because the majority are Christian, than you can with equal accuracy say this is a female nation, or a Caucasian nation, for all the significance that should have under law. If you claim that Christians should have some legal advantages, whatever they may be, then do as Assaid suggested, and reread the First Amendment.
