Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Church and State: Part Three
OK, so the origination of the phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not imply keeping religion out of the public square or even government. Also, the 1st Amendment clearly states that in the "hands off" category, it is government being restrained from affecting religion, not religion being restrained from affecting government. So what's next?
The 10th Amendment
Here is where things will probably get dicey (possibly offensive) for atheists and "Separation" proponents. I don't mean it that way, but I think it is important to plainly understand what the US Constitution plainly says. Not how we interpret it based on our own philosophies and passions.
This amendment clearly states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If the Constitution does not give a power to the federal government, then it is in the hands of the states or the people as individuals.
What does the Constitution do in regards to religion and the federal government? As we saw plainly stated in the 1st Amendment, it restricts congress from passing any laws regarding religion at all. That's it. Period. "Congress shall make no law..."
So what power does the federal government have regarding religion?
None! The executive and judicial branches can't make laws (despite some people in them who try). Only congress has the proper, legal, government apparatus to affect religion, and they are prohibited from doing it.
So who can?
Either the states, or individual people. If there is a matter regarding religion that is deemed necessary to address, Washington DC has absolutely ZERO power or authority to address the issue. Congress can't make a law, and since it would be an internal state matter, federal judges have no jurisdiction to rule.
I would even go a step further and say you can reasonably understand this to encompass laws that affect religion even if they don't directly address religion.
Here's how this looks:
There's currently a controversy going on because a healthcare law would cause members and organizations of a certain religion to violate the clearly stated moral doctrines of that church.
According to the 1st Amendment, this law is invalid, because it would prohibit the free exercise of religion. Supporters of this law should then, according to the Constitution, take this issue to the state legislatures, and possibly end up in even "lower" local governments trying to get their ideas and "solutions" enacted.
The US Constitution only restricts the Congress of the US from addressing religion through legislation. Any power not given to the Feds are by default given to the states. This would include issues addressing religion.
Depending on the individual State's constitution, religious beliefs CAN be expressed through state and local governments.
If the dominant belief of a community or state is Jewish, a state legislature or city council (body of duly elected representatives of the people) is well within their legal rights to erect a 20ft tall manorah if they want to.
If the dominant belief of a community or state is Christian, they can have, on public display, symbols of this faith such as 10 Commandments, Nativity Scenes and even a cross.
If the dominant belief of a community or state is Atheist, they can have absolutely nothing at all on display.
And you know what? Their lack of celebration or observance, while it may sadden me to not see trappings recognizing the Creator of the universe in public, in NO WAY infringes on my personal, religious rights or freedoms and does not compel me to deny my faith.
Does a dominant belief system being publicly expressed apply some social pressure for those of other beliefs to conform? Of course it does. But not more than any other law.
A great deal of people thought seat belts were a foolish notion (some still do). The majority vote said to buckle up. Laws were passed and now people hardly even think about it. Instinct kicks in and the belt gets clicked in place. Same thing with motorcycle helmets.
And the same thing with religion. Humanists (a religion) got evolution in science class and prayer removed altogether. A few generations later and even people proclaiming to be Christians are trying to fit billions of years into the bible and don't think there should be prayer in schools.
An idea gets going, enough people feel or "believe" a certain way for legislation to be considered. If enough people support it (or a small number of the 'right' people), it becomes law. Over time (usually) minds get changed and attitudes shift more towards the standard of the law. Or not and the process continues.
Either way, if you are not being restrained from holding and freely exercising your religion, a local government can express whatever religious beliefs they (as representatives of the community at large) want, and there is no Constitutional issue.
There may be an ethical issue if they are not representing the community at large, but you will find no such restrictions in the US Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You got it. Very well explained.
ReplyDeleteMay God continue to bless your work for the kingdom.
Another good article, Marc. There are many things that the government has done since the 1890's to destroy our Republic, chief among them the re-writing of history and the selective interpretation of our founding documents. The government of today is built on the lies of the past. Since the 1890's, but more prevalently since the 1920's, the government has used a made up "incorporation doctrine" from the 14th Amendment. The courts have ruled time and again that the Constitutional protections and the subsequent restrictions on the federal government in the Bill of Rights apply also to the state. What is needed is an awakening to our history and a new-found respect for our founding documents.
ReplyDeleteAnother "loop hole" the government uses to do its deeds (in the case of the health care law you reference) is the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution. This clause should be viewed within the context of the intent of the founders. This clause was so controversial at the time that the entirety of one of the Federalist Papers (Federalist #41) had to be written to address people's concerns that the clause would be used to justify any power the government deemed to serve the general welfare could be used. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the referenced paper argues that the powers would necessarily be limited to the powers given to the government by the Constitution.
The final loop hole used is the commerce clause. Properly understood, the commerce clause should only be used to keep the several states from laying tarrifs on imports from other states. However, the courts have ruled, and the sheep of the nation have gone along with, the idea that the government should have the power to regulate ALL interstate commerce. Insanity.
My dad and I have discussed on several occasions that while we do not like what is going on with our government, it is God who has put these people in power to serve His will. Could it be that His will is a great awakening and return to the very founding documents and the freedoms that they afforded? I ask you this, in you whole life, have you ever seen so much discussion abouto the Constitution and its meaning? I don't think so. I believe that God has used and continues to use the people in power to bring about the opposite of what those people desire: a renewed interest in liberty and freedom that comes only from Him.
Peace out!
Actually, most of my life I've been taught a plainly understood reading of the constitution in light of founders who valued individual liberty. When I grew up and in my 20's started paying attention to politics became appalled at how twisted everything has become.
ReplyDeleteInteresting note on God's plan: I sometimes wonder if God's not letting us slide away from our founding principles. From my understanding of the end times described in the bible, the USA isn't there, or at least isn't a power player. Plus, I doubt a liberty and freedom loving USA would sit idly by while the Antichrist rose to power. I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure that we don't "need" to diminish as part of God's ultimate plan.