I wrote this a while ago, but I thought I would share it. I am continually learning, so I would love to hear your point of view.
The separation between church and State has been argued among the wisest minds since the beginning of this nation. To be honest, it has been argued since the beginning of man. Throughout the Roman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition, the Reformation, and England’s Tyranny, to Stalin’s Russia the separation of church and State has been argued and fought over. I don’t claim to have the perfect answer to the statement that even the wisest dispute over. In fact, till this year I didn’t even comprehend how to answer that statement, because that black and white line seemed to be blurred to grey. But over this year my ideas of religion, government, history, and beliefs have been challenged. As a result the grey line has become a distinct black and white separation.
Religion is essential for any government, but government should not authorize religion.
We will be looking at the support of this statement through three points. First is the history behind the separation of church and state, then how there is no way you can be religiously neutral, and lastly what that means in our politics.
The separation of church and state is never mentioned in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Preamble, so how did this phrase become so popular? Well, Thomas Jefferson used this phrase in one of his letters. Here is the actual wording of that letter, “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.” You can clearly see, that in that letter Jefferson isn’t saying that the state should be morally free, but rather that religion is between God and man not State and man. Jefferson believed that the government should not mandate region. It is important to discern that the Separation of church and state isn’t a law but rather an idea. Too often we look at that phrase as if it is law, we hardly treat it like the idea that it is.
The statement is currently perceived as implying that we can have neutral morals. But is this even possible? While according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary morals means: “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior: ethical.” There can’t be a neutral right and wrong. Every law is based off of a person’s belief or principle, weather that principle is Christian or not. You see, every man has a principle or system of beliefs. From that principle or system of beliefs he valuates the world. He determines how the world should be. You cannot take principles or morals out of ideas, laws, and thoughts. It is impossible to be neutral. Look at it from the view of Hitler. His religion was certainly not based on Christianity, but rather based off of the idea that there was a power race. He looked at the world through his morals and principles and determined that the Jews were the cause of the world’s problems. He applied the survival of the fittest technique in hope of accomplishing a golden race of people. Fortunately he did not achieve this. He ruled Germany through his religion.
People would like you to believe that there is a separation of church and state, that men can be religiously neutral and make laws that way. Joy Hakim quotes James Madison in her book War, Peace, and All That Jazz “Religion and government will both exist in a greater purity, the less they are mixed together” she goes on to say in her own words “The Founding Fathers were clear: ours was to be a nation founded on the idea of separation of church and state.” But this in fact isn’t true. I will later explain my positions of how the government should not mandate religion and how it is separate in that sense, but for now let’s deal with the idea that the Founding fathers were religiously neutral. It is not hard to find vast amounts of verification on the fact that Founding Fathers were not religiously neutral. If you walk down the National Mall in Washington D.C. you can see the confirmation of the founding fathers beliefs. They founded a nation on Christian ideas and beliefs. Every law, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights is proof of that. What the Founding Fathers meant about the separation is that congress shouldn’t mandate religion. The first Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There it is plainly, congress should not establish religion. Unlike the Spanish Inquisition the founders knew the flaws of forcing people to be of one religion. Government eventually becomes corrupt, because it is ruled by people prone to sin. The Founding Fathers would not tie religion to a constant corrupting government. But that does not mean that they made laws that were not based on principles. In his book God and Government by Gary DeMar, Mr. Demar explains this point nicely “The Constitution of the United States of America has the First Amendment as a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the church not to disestablish it.”
If you take the fish out of water it dies, but the water cannot mandate the fish to stay in the water. Likewise, if you take every principle out of government, principles being worldviews that including Atheism, Deism, Marxism, Christianity, ect, you have a non-existent government. In the same government can’t regulate principles. It is utterly impossible to separate morals from policies, decisions, and ideas. No government can exist without morals or principle. But a government doesn’t have the jurisdiction to standardize religion or principles. Historically we see that when morals were regulated death, war, and destruction closely followed. Take the Spanish inquisition, for example
James H. Thornwell Preached this sermon over a hundred years ago, but it rings just as true today: “To have a religion is one thing, to have a Church Establishment is another; and perhaps the most effectual way of extinguishing the religious life of a State is to confine the expression of it to the forms and peculiarities of a single sect. The Church and State, as visible institution, are entirely distinct, and neither can usurp the province of the other without injury to both. But religion, as a life, as an inward principle, though specially developed and fostered by church, extends its domain beyond the sphere of technical worship, touches all the relations of man, and constitutes the inspiration of every duty. The service of the Commonwealth becomes an act of piety to God. The State realizes its religious character through the religious character of its subjects; (and a state is and ought to be Christian, because all its subject are and ought to be determined by the principle of the gospel.)”
When you read the Old Testament God calls the Levites to be the priest and the line of Judah to be the kings. Both the priest (church) and the kings (Government) worshiped God (or at least were suppose to). It was a separation of power not a separation of beliefs.
The impossibility of separation of morals from laws becomes important during elections. Voting for the “lesser of two evils” defeats the purpose of representation. In the originally purpose of voting, we would vote for leaders who best represent the peoples morals. Lately, we are told to only vote for the lesser of two evils, the problem is that the lesser man is no longer representing what we believe.
When it comes to politics, world view and morals are vital. Whether people vote for your candidate or not, is not the issue, the issue is whether that candidate can represent what you believe. Your vote only counts if you are voting for someone that has the same morals, because we cannot separate morals from laws.
In conclusion, you can see through these points that it is impossible to do anything without having a principle behind it. As much as congress men may try to be neutral they cannot. It is clear that religion is absolutely necessary for a government on any scale, but it is also true that government should not try to mandate religion. Historically we can see when religion was mandate war, death, torture were closely tied in. You cannot separate principle form intentions, laws, or actions. Religion is essential for any government, but government should not mandate religion.
