Church and State: Part Two

OK, so we're discussing the proper relationship between the church and the state. Often this is implied to include the more general ideas of religion and politics. Many today claim that religion has no place in politics.
I am of the belief that not only does it have a proper place, but that place is protected by the constitution ... and you couldn't keep people's religious beliefs out of their politics if you tried.

In part one we discussed the actual term "separation of church and state" and how the meaning it has now days is not what was meant by Jefferson when he wrote it. "Alright," an anti-religious person might say, "Forget about Jefferson then, he's not my reason. It's just unconstitutional."


There have been legislation and court cases on this issue, but the ultimate authority is the same ultimate authority on any legal issue in our nation. The US Constitution. So let's take a look at the 1st Amendment

If you actually look at the religious freedom clauses in the 1st Amendment in the Constitution, this is not a prohibition on religion, but a limitation on Congress. Indeed, the entire document, especially the Bill of Rights is a restraint of government, specifically the federal government. To read it as anything else would be disingenuous.

Establishment Clause
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

Simply put, congress cannot create a state sponsored religion. Remember, the founders were coming from England where there was a church not only endorsed by the government, but run by the government, and you had to be a member. (that's quite a bit different than displays on memorials or in art on government buildings)

That church's power did not reach to the "New World." Many of the colonists and settlers in America canme to freely exercise their own religion without a government run church telling themwhat to do. With this idea still fully entrenched in their thinking, this is what the founders had in mind.

I do not think it is a stretch to say this idea also limits congress's ability to say which religions are valid.

What this clause does NOT say, is that congress and any legislation it passes shall not be influenced by the religious beliefs of the people. If you take that position, you are certainly free to hold that belief, express that belief, and even try to convince others of that belief. You can even emphaticly petition your representative to not make their decisions on basis of faith (their's or their contituency's).

What you cannot do is make the constitution say something it does not. And it plainly does not say that religious belief has to be left on the steps of the Capital Building.


Free Exercise ClauseThe second half of the statement made in the 1st Amendment is that congress shall make no law re establishment of a religion, "or the free exercise thereof."

Despite what some say, your religion is not just practiced in a church, synogogue or mosque. People live according to their beliefs in ALL areas of life not just 'in church'. What you believe about God, morality, afterlife, etc. affects every other aspect of your life. It influences every choice you will make, and shapes your beliefs about everything else.

I love my wife and my daughter. Now imagine if you were to tell me that I am not allowed to express that love or take actions based on that love except at home. That would be rediculous. Every other aspect of my life is shaped by my role as a father and husband. What if the guys at work want to go out for drinks at the local strip club, and I decline because I am married. Would it make any kind of reasonable sense for then to say, "Hey man, keep that stuff at home and to yourself"? No, that's rediculous.

Providing for my family is the main motivating factor in why I work 3 jobs and try to excell at each one of them. It's absurd to expect a foundational aspect of who I am to be left out of my decision making.

As true as it would be with my role as a husband, it is equally absurd to expect voters and lawmakers to leave their religious beliefs out when addressing matters of public policy.

My religious beliefs shape my pro-life stance. It would be dishonest and hypocritical of me to believe that life is created by God in the womb and then to be ok with a woman ending that unborn life for convenience sake.

That's a long-winded approach, but I hope it helps you to see that religion does not exist in a vacuum. Even atheists' lack of religion influences their views and choices.

Part of "free exercise" is the ability to express those beliefs in public.

Remember, the 1st Amendment is a restriction on congress, not religion. Even if you believe religion needs to be restrained and kept from public expression, that is your choice, but it is not what the constitution says.