Posted by
Tim Busovsky on Friday, April 27, 2007 6:11:15 PM
The words Church
and State are basically inseparable in modern politics. It seems with
terrorism at the forefront of seemingly all political contests, the concept of
religion in politics has been propelled to the front of the debate. In
the past few years, simple phrases such as "Under God" have been
challenged openly in Federal Courts in order to pursue a ruling that would
suggest religious discrimination in the government's practices, which would be
inherently unconstitutional. However, the rulings have been overturned
and "Under God" remains in the pledge of allegiance as well as on
American currency. From an absolutely displaced perspective, was this
ruling correct? Furthermore, where does the line between Church and State
lie?
These questions are difficult to
answer, as everyone has their own inherent biases regarding religion.
However, there must be a definitive answer to this question, as no question
exists that doesn't have an absolute answer. The ruling in the case
brought by Michael Newdow was absolutely correct, both legally and
ethically. First, let's tackle the legal aspect of the debate and then
delve into the ethics of the issue.
In an open letter, Dr. Michael Newdow
wrote the following:
"The
First Amendment states 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion. As I understand it, this
resulted from the Framers' awareness of the persecution and animosity that
inevitably accompanies state religions. With this in mind, they made the
decision to ensure religious freedom by keeping the government out of that
sensitive area. Personally, I think this was a good idea. And even if I didn't,
it's one of the fundamental rules of our society. Thus, when I see our Pledge
of Allegiance containing the words "under God," I see a gross
violation of one of our foremost Constitutional mandates.”
The first gross misinterpretation
that Dr. Newdow makes regarding the First Amendment is that he only accounts
for the beginning of the sentence. The
rest of the First Amendment reads as follows:
“...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.”
First, the Pledge of Allegiance is
in no way, shape, or form a law. It is
recognized as the national pledge by the Federal government. Secondly, the First Amendment states that
Congress shall not intervene legally regarding the banning of individual
religions and religious practices. In
fact, all people, including members of Congress, are given the right to freely
practice religion, no matter which religion they choose to follow. All people are free to practice their
religion without the intervention of government. Congressmen can legally meet and decide to
use the words “Under God” in the context of currency and the Pledge of Allegiance
because the words are in reference to the legal and ethical roots of the nation
as well as the fact that Congress is not composing legislation advocating any
particular religion or denouncing another.
Saying that the United States
is one nation under God simply acknowledges the Judeo-Christian roots that the government’s
laws are founded upon. The founding
fathers’ interpretations of religious practices are very good, as Dr. Newdow
points out. However, the interpretations
of religion and its role in government of the founding fathers are strikingly
different than those of Dr. Newdow. The
American colonies were essentially founded upon the desire of England
to expand its empire, as well as British men and women seeking to escape the
British government’s ever-growing persecution.
The difference between the British government and the government
constructed in the Constitution is that the British government actively supported
the Church of England through forced taxes as well as attendance to religious
services. The American government was
established to prevent this state sponsored persecution, not to root out
religion in all aspects of life. This
concept is heavily overlooked by many politicians and activists because it
seems that any reference to religion in regards to a public officer crosses the
line between Church and State. The
government is not forcing every citizen to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or
believe the two word slogan that has caused such an intense uproar. Americans are free to practice or even not
practice, that which they believe is true.
Anything short of this would be a staunch violation of the First
Amendment. Just as Dr. Newdow does not
have to say “Semper Fi” or “I’m lovin it”, he does not have to say “Under God”.
The concept of separation of Church
and State is actually derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802
to the Danbury Baptist Association. The
bulk of his letter reads:
Believing
with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God,
that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the
legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus
building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this
expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of
conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those
sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he
has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
The wall that Jefferson
is discussing is not the free exercise of religious belief in government, but
rather, the legal intervention of government in a particular religion. Simply put, the government has no authority
under the Constitution to ban or support any religion through legislation. Jefferson, as well as the other founding
fathers, was well versed in the study of religion and brought the principles of
Locke and other Enlightenment philosophers to the forefront of politics and
government, advocating the free practice of all beliefs without the
interference of the government. The
Constitution was composed to avoid Theocratic government, which clearly is not
present in our legislative or judicial branches. American laws, though heavily influenced by
Judeo-Christian and historical law, are not based on religion solely. Laws exist not to punish those who have no
religion, but protect those who are innocent.
The United States
government is composed of a doctrine, sacred in its own right, which is free of
all bonds of intolerance. Let us promote
freedom in all aspects of life, even in religion. Let us advocate freedom of religion rather
than freedom from religion.