Two Popular Myths About the United States
- There is a constitutional separation of church and state
- Faith-based concepts should be kept out of the public realm
Let’s see if I can address these highly controversial topics in the least controversial way possible.
1.
There is a constitutional separation of church and state
The
U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a “separation of church and state”—at
least, not in the sense the phrase is understood today. In fact, that
particular phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.
So
where did the wording come from? We find it in a letter written by Thomas
Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. This group of
Baptists was concerned about a potential restriction on their freedom to pursue
religion as they saw fit. “Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of
religious liberty,” they wrote, “…[and that] no man ought to suffer in
name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions.” If you read
their letter in its entirety, you’ll see that they were not concerned about
America being friendly toward religion. They were concerned about the
establishment of a state religion that infringed on the rights of dissenting
individuals.
Jefferson
agreed with the Danbury Baptists. His response
involved citing from the First Amendment (that congress would “make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof”) and thus assuring the Baptists that this clause established “a wall
of separation between Church and State.”
It
has been argued ad nauseam about what that phrase means, and I won’t delve into
the argument here. All I will say is that the First Amendment guarantees American
citizens the freedom publicly to participate in (among other things) religion,
speech, and the press. These rights are equally important and should be
defended with equal devotion.
2.
Faith-based concepts should be kept out of the public realm
This
myth is closely associated with the previous one. As an illustration: During an
argument I once overheard, one man made the following statement: “There is a
very clearly defined separation between church and state, and arguments founded
in faith have no place in the public sphere.” He said we need to have better
reasons for policies than just “well, God says so.”
Now,
there’s a certain sense in which I actually agree with this man. The United
States is not a theocracy. Even so, such a blanket statement on this
gentleman’s side of the argument ignores the reality that the seeds of our
nation’s birth were cultivated in the soil of a “God says so” proposition:
We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
The
Declaration of Independence claims that all men should be treated as equals.
Why? Because this newly established government says so? No, because
something—Someone—greater than this or any government says so. Because there is
a Creator who made us all equal and granted us certain rights.
The
very reason the United States exists is because of its acknowledgement that
“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” supersede the attempts of overreaching
tyrants. Our Founding Fathers appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world for
the rectitude of [their] intentions” and placed “a firm reliance on the
protection of divine Providence.” At its outset, the American way of life was
bound to the idea that there is an Authority higher than any form of
government.
For
the sake of our purposes here, that Authority need not necessarily be the
Christian God in whom I believe. The Founding Fathers represented a mix of
religious beliefs, not the least of which was Deism. The point remains that
they discerned an indissoluble link between human rights and Divine fiat.
Conclusion
Okay,
so I’ve just made two controversial arguments. After reading them, you may have
concluded that at least some of my political leanings could be categorized as
“conservative.” Or you may have seen visions of me riding into the political
fray on a rogue stallion, wearing an American flag, holding a double barreled
shotgun in both hands, and firing rounds at anything that moves. Yes, political
debates can so easily be derailed by generalizations and assumptions. To avoid
that, let me quickly make a few clarifying statements.
There
are several points I am not attempting to make with this blog post.
First, I am not saying that anyone who disagrees with me on these
matters is obviously a traitor worthy of deportation. That would be a gross and
uncharitable assumption. Second, I am not saying that America was or is
or should be a Christian nation. The true Kingdom of God is not of this world,
and it cannot be reduced to being perfectly compliant with any man-made form of
government. Also, I am not saying that we need to take back “our” nation
from the radical secularists who have stolen it from us. This great nation
belongs to all who live within its borders—religious or otherwise.
So
what is my point in writing this blog post? Simply this: if we are going to
have a productive debate about these and many other political issues, let us
make every effort not to perpetuate falsehoods. Such confusion (intentional or
unintentional) only serves to dirty the waters. And politics is a dirty enough
topic to begin with.