WHAT IS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?
Recently when I blithely suggested that Pope John Paul was quite correct and consistent when he reminded Catholic politicians of their OBLIGATION to legislate in harmony with Catholic principles, I was verbally hammered by some elegant but fascistic thugs who suffocated me with something called the “Separation” of Church and State. In 1990 Cardinal O’Connor of New York warned that Catholic politicians who supported abortion rights were “ at risk of excommunication.” He reminded Catholic Pro-Abortion (choice) Politicians, including Governor Mario Cuomo, of St. Thomas More - - “while he remained committed to his King, his first obligation was to Almighty God. Catholics in public office must also have this commitment to serve the state; but service to God must always come first.” There were outraged charges of violation of the Wall of Separation!!! Who does the Cardinal think he is?
So many times I have been left emotionally flattened with this shibboleth so facilely wielded by the wild eyed secularists with whom I so often “ hang out.” But, lately, I am taking great comfort, perspective and enlightenment from Stephen L. Carter’s book THE CULTURE OF DISBELIEF in which he describes similar experiences, but with the skill of a lawyer who knows how to make distinctions.
There was what he calls a “silly fight” from a political group in a township which loudly opposed the RENTAL of a public school building for a religious meeting - - - separation of church and state, they said. He tells of an unbelieveable fury from some secular group which screamingly opposed the inclusion of a “Motorist’s Prayer” on road maps; a prayer bland and non-denominational asking only for protection from God. Again, the claim: it violates the separation of Church and State. Is this frenzy truly American? Constitutional? Insensitive? Unfair? Bigoted? Correct?
While the Courts have indeed enforced a kind of “separation”, we should not misunderstand what the First Amendment was designed to do. Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson did certainly use the metaphor of a “ wall.” But the “wall” was erected to protect RELIGION from the State, NOT the state from religion. The First Amendment is meant to give maximum freedom to religion, not to harass and limit it.
The first subject in the First Amendment is religion, not government. It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion……or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We learn that free speech and a free press come AFTER the clauses meant to secure religious liberty. Carter points out that the Constitution neither forces people into any particular religion nor does it punish anyone for his religious expression. He insists that the Amendment does not ban people from trying to influence Government (religiously). Nor is Government banned from listening to such people whose basic motivation is religious.
It is necessary to understand this distinction to preserve the correct and necessary separation of Church and state. To use abstract rhetoric treating religion as an INFERIOR way for citizens to come to public judgment is unfair and unnecessary. Indeed, Robert T. Miller, constitutional lawyer and professor at Columbia University writes in the journal, FIRST THINGS, (Feb. ’04), that the relationship between religion and government (in a secularist framework) becomes one of two things. Religion, when seen as a hobby and domesticated, is treated benignly by secularist government. However, should religion become more than a hobby and non-domesticated, there is only one approach for the secular ruler. Religion must be destroyed. This dismal and unconstitutional outcome could be the logical and inevitable reality should Carter’s distinction be lost or ignored.
Dismal is not too strong a word to describe what the future MIGHT be. Even Christopher Lasch (who could hardly be called a conservative thinker) writes:
“What accounts for (our society’s) wholesale defection from the standards of personal conduct-- Civility, industry, self restraint---that once wereconsidered indispensable for democracy?” He answers his own question: “…the gradual decay of religion.” He further claims that liberals view religion in a range from indifference to hostility. Judge Bork claims that the Supreme Court has almost established a new religion: Secular Humanism - - and he states that we may all be the worse for it.
James Madison in his MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE while correctly defeating the plan of Patrick Henry to have state financial support for Virginia churches, definitely proclaimed that the obligation of man to GOD was PRIOR to man’s obligation to the state which he said meant the subordination of the state to God. In fact, I learned from Carter that the entire disestablishment movement in Virginia was meant to rescue religious freedom from state oppression, NOT to rescue the state from religious oppression. This is not what I hear on talk shows or in the locker room of the NYAC.
And further and more revealing is the insight into the thinking of Thomas Jefferson who has been quoted to me as the Deist who valued religion no more than any aspect of the human conscience. However, Religious liberty was, for Jefferson, “…the MOST inalienable and sacred of ALL human rights.” (“Freedom of Religion at the University of Virginia,” in Saul K. Padover, ed. The Complete Jefferson, p.958). I had heard and read of Jefferson’s contempt for Judaism and organized religion but never that he believed in the primacy of religious expression. Why is only a one sided interpretation of American history presented? Are we afraid of something?
An interesting corollary to this type of thinking leaps out at the reader in the book by Judge Robert H. Bork,(cited above) entitled COERCING VIRTUE, in which he makes the fascinating point that the Courts rule America and in effect make law. A small group of Americans, largely unelected, decide how we shall live and what we shall consider to be “ virtuous.” Bork claims that the liberal intelligentsia, secular as it has become, is fearful ( terrified?) of religion. Hence, its incessant harping on the dangers posed by what is being called “ the religious right.” Antagonism to religion is now a part of American jurisprudence. (page 65)
The Framers obviously had a different view of religion than the Courts today. We now have a Lemon test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403{US} 603) which can ultimately erase any hint of religion in Government. Every statute must have a secular purpose (1), Its primary EFFECT must not advance religion {or inhibit it} (2) and must not foster excessive Government entanglement with religion (3). If this test is rigorously applied, religion could be squeezed out of the “Public Square” entirely. Would not this seem deviant from the Framers’ intent? Some spiritually minded persons are calling for the same government support which is given to agnostic and atheist belief systems. Religions should not be put into second class categories but should be allowed to compete side by side with secular groups for the “largess of the welfare state.”
But Carter opines (p.122) “The potential transformation of the Establishment Clause from a guardian of religious liberty into a guarantor of public secularism raises the prospect at once dismal and dreadful.” Even granting the thesis of Harold Berman who holds that the concepts of religious expression have substantially changed since World War I to the present, we can hold that the illiberal liberal stance has gone too far. Recall our basic history. The day after the passage of the Bill of Rights, the then President, George Washington, declared that there be a day of Thanksgiving to the beneficent Creator. Thomas Jefferson, as Governor of Virginia, called for a day of “thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.” Our coinage says “In God we trust.” Clearly, the intent was NOT to harass religion but to protect free religious expression without establishing ONE official state religion.
We have paid chaplains in Congress to begin each day with prayer. The Supreme Court begins its sessions with a recognition of the Lord. The Court building itself is adorned with beautiful murals literally shrieking out the Ten Commandments.
Have our Concepts changed so much to make such practices a facet of poor citizenship? Shall we annul our chaplain corps in the Military? They are paid by public monies to nurture the spiritual lives of American warriors! Shall we pretend to forget the stirring scenes of World War II chaplains giving General absolution and the Holy Eucharist to young men about to storm Saipan or Oran or Iwo Jima or Normandy?
A recent picture showed a large group of Marines with heads bowed in prayer.
An ACLU official almost had the typical apoplexy on viewing the scene and demanded an immediate investigation of this nefarious practice. It would, he said, create a terrible precedent and represented a violation of the separation of Church and State. (Where did he study American history?) The Marine Commandant retorted: “ Screw (a euphemism) the ACLU! God bless our warriors and let the ACLU go to France!”
(Apparently, to paraphrase Judge Bork, the Commandant, using a short Anglo-Saxon verb, suggested that the ACLU perform a sexual act with itself of extreme anatomical implausibility)
So,can a Catholic Bishop try to influence Government policy? You betcha’ he can - - - - if one understands the real meaning of the “ separation” as defined by Stephen Carter. Don’t tell me that Bishops cross the line when they try to refine public policy about abortion and same sex marriage! Otherwise, you are insisting that there be only one vision of reality - - - that of the powerful group of individuals called the state. Carter teaches this: “Back in Tocqueville’s day, this ( secular monocularism) was called “tyranny.” Nowadays, all too often, but quite mistakenly, it is called “ separation of Church and State.”