Church and State: Concluding Thoughts

A Government Of, For, and By The People

We have a representative republic form of government where elected representatives make decisions and laws. In theory, we would elect reps that would do things in alignment with our will. Though in practice it doesn't always happen that way, basically the will of (beliefs of) the people ultimately dictate public policy. If not, then we boot officials out and re-elect someone who will do things our way.

The beliefs of the people get expressed through their government through the democratic process whereby our representatives vote and the majority wins.

We all have beliefs and ideas contrary to some legally instituted legislation whether local, state or federal. We grin and bear it because as the will of the people, it is now the law of the land. We can work to change it by changing people's minds or electing new officials, or we can sue to have it judicially reviewed and overturned IF it is in violation of the constitution (state or federal).

Religion is no different. As long as you are NOT being forced to partake in or confess a specific religion OR having your other rights violated because of your differing religion, a local community can express their majority held religious beliefs in public and through their duly elected representatives.

Obviously, much of what I have written is considered abstract or in the realm of ideas and not consistent with current legal practice. I understand that there has been legislation and judicial activity that has set precedence contrary to the ideas I have stated here. However, what people do or allow to be done has no effect on what is actually true (or in this case, what is actually stated in the Constitution).

At one time, the accepted medical practice was to bleed people to get out the bad blood and with it the sickness. Thankfully we discovered the error in that practice.

The issue in question here is not "what should policy be", but what does the law actually say. The ultimate law is the Constitution.

As I have demonstrated, the Constitution does not prohibit religion from influencing government or being displayed publicly. In fact, it does the opposite and is supposed to restrain government from influencing or controlling religion.

You may not agree with that idea. You may think religion needs to be kept out of public discourse and has no place in public life, whether expressed by a person or on display. As I said before, you are welcome to that belief. One of the great things about America is that you have the freedom to formulate and express dissenting ideas.

What you cannot do is make the Constitution say something it does not say. And what you should not do is find ways to bypass and skirt around the Constitution.

Built within the founding document of our nation is a process by which you can change or add to it. The process is not easy, nor should it be! Altering the core principles and foundational structure of a society should not be an easy thing to do, but it can be done. As we evolve as a culture, and as our beliefs and values change, we can rewrite the Constitution to accommodate those changes, through the proper amendment process.

However, when you hold differing views but cannot bring change by the amendment process, the absolutely wrong thing to do is to try and bring about change by other means.

We have seen judges (from across the political spectrum) make rulings based not on law or the Constitution, but on their own ideas and beliefs. We have seen lawmakers incrementally stretch the bounds of the Constitution inch by inch until the laws and precedents being made leave our core document as little more than a quaint set of guidelines.

This is very dangerous. After 200+ years of legal precedence, we risk making the Constitution all but obsolete. For the sake of our own comfort or our own ideas, we have weakened the strength of the only thing standing between us and oppression.

The freedoms we enjoy are not held in place by force, but by mutually agreed upon rules. The Constitution is a pact, a treaty, made between citizens of this nation that freedom and individual rights will be respected and protected. The Constitution draws out the lines and assigns the roles of government and of people. Like lines and signs on the road, the Constitution says "Here is your proper position in the flow. Here is where you are not allowed to go."

And what happens when people decide their ideas are better on the road?
"That speed limit is too low. I'm in a hurry."
"I don't need to stop. Clearly no one is coming."
"This person's going slow. I'll just pass on the shoulder."
"I don't need to signal."
"I don't need to slow down in that school zone. School's already out."
"I don't care what the legal limit is. I've only had 3 beers."

Or what about the more absurd?
"I prefer driving on the left side of the road. It works for Britain"
"I think it's better to go on red."
"Blue cars always get the right of way."

What would happen if people just randomly decided the rules of the road don't need to be followed or started making up their own? Chaos. Injury. Distress. Even death. But what keeps us from that chaos? Posted signs and painted lines on the road? No. It's our common agreement to follow those lines and signs. And as conditions, technology or driving habits change, we adjust laws to alter those signs and those lines. But until they get altered, we are supposed to obey them.

That's the way it is with the Constitution. You can't make a red light mean "go" any more than you can make the Constitution say "separation of church and state." Yet the only thing keeping our rights and freedoms safe are lines ... lines of script on a page. Lines that we mutually agree upon. And when we stray from those lines we invite chaos. Even worse, we invite oppression.

With driving, when the lines are ignored you have thoughtlessness and carelessness.

With the power of government, when the Constitution is ignored you get oppression and the stripping away of freedoms.

You may want the Constitution to prohibit religion in the public square. But it doesn't. And to impose your ideas on our society by misuse of government, you shrink the authority of the Constitution and move us one step closer to an oppressive ruling body.

And I have always wondered about those who want to give government more authority than it is rightfully and legally granted: What do you intend to do when the political philosophy swings against you, but you find yourself with no recourse because (in a hurry to get your side the victory) you helped elevate government to a position greater than your own individual's rights?