I think what needs to become crystal clear to evangelicals and religious conservatives throughout this country is that the concept of Separation of Church and State is not all about keeping the Church out of Government, as they think, but perhaps more importantly about keeping Government out of the Church.
As will be illustrated by the new book Tempting Faith and the 60 Minutes special that goes along with it, our current Government is not "serving" religion, they are using it.
As a result, we have a supposedly religious President who has started an unneccessary and unjust war that has cost the lives of thousands, and who has created a policy of torture and indefinite detention.
But none of this is new.
To further illustrate, I looked back at another time in history when a government started to use the church in order to advance their own agenda: 16th Century England.
In the early 1500's, another leader was getting heavily involved in the control of the country's religion. At first, he was praised and hailed for his faith. In fact, this leader, Henry VIII, was so revered, he had been given the title
"Defender of the Faith" by Pope Leo X.
Then, in 1534, a parliamentary act made the melding of Church and State in England official, and gave Henry VIII legal sanction to assume clerical powers as the Head of the Church of England. The State now had control over the Church. Here's a brief history lesson on what followed:
The Beheading of Anne Boleyn
Henry VIII, now being "the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England" decided he didn't want to be married to his wife Anne Boleyn anymore, so being the head of his country's religion, decided to do away with her with his own little flair
Henry VIII
In 1536, Queen Anne began to lose Henry's favour. After the Princess Elizabeth's birth, Queen Anne had two pregnancies that ended in either miscarriage or stillbirth. Henry VIII, meanwhile, had begun to turn his attentions to another lady of his court, Jane Seymour. Perhaps encouraged by Thomas Cromwell, Henry had Anne arrested on charges of using witchcraft to trap Henry into marrying her, of having adulterous relationships with five other men, of incest with her brother George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford, of injuring the King and of conspiring to kill him--which amounted to treason. (The charges were most likely fabricated.) The court trying the case was presided over by Anne's own uncle, Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. In May 1536, the Court condemned Anne and her brother to death, either by burning at the stake or by decapitation, whichever the King pleased. The other four men Queen Anne had allegedly been involved with were to be hanged, drawn and quartered. Lord Rochford was beheaded soon after the trial ended; the four others implicated had their sentences commuted from hanging, drawing and quartering to decapitation. Anne was also beheaded soon thereafter. Her marriage to Henry was annulled shortly before her execution.
I ask of those on the Right who want as much melding of Church and State as possible: Would you want the
President of the United States to be, besides the leader of our government, also
the leader of deciding what is morally correct in the country? What if the President decided that it should be morally acceptable for men to falsely imprison and execute their wives? Or just decide it should be morally acceptable for all men in the country to cheat on their wives? Or, perhaps, decide that it should be morally acceptable for this country to engage in
torture?
The Dissolution of the Monasteries
After being granted power by parliament over all churches in England, Henry promptly decided he wanted to confiscate all properties of Roman Catholic Churches in England and use their wealth to pay off State debts.
Dissolution of the Monasteries
In April 1539 a new Parliament passed a law giving the king the rest of the monasteries in England. Some of the abbots resisted, and that autumn the abbots of Colchester, Glastonbury, and Reading were executed for treason in doing so, to set an example. The other abbots gave in and signed their abbeys over to the king. Some of the confiscated church buildings were destroyed by having the valuable lead removed from roofs and stone reused for secular buildings. Some of the smaller Benedictine houses were taken over as parish churches, and were even bought for the purpose by wealthy parishes.
I ask of those on the Right who want as much melding of Church and State as possible: Would you want the
United States Government to be given
ownership of all religious property in the country? What if the United States Government decided it needed to take some of the church property in this country and sell it so that it could pay off debts owed to other countries?
The Prayer Book Rebellion
Henry VIII's successor, Edward VI, changed the prayer book that was to be used in Churches throughout England, declaring it illegal to use the old prayer book. Many people rebelled and took to the streets to demand the withdrawal of the new English prayer books. The king orderded that they be pacified and an army of mercenaries was set upon the protesters.
Prayer Book Rebellion
The rebels were largely farmers armed with little more than pitchforks and the mercenary arquebusiers killed over a thousand rebels at Crediton, then murdered 900 unarmed people at Clyst St Mary. 1,300 were slaughtered at Sampford Courtenay and 300 died at Fenny Bridges. Further orders were issued on behalf of the king by the Lord Protector, the Earl of Somerset, and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer for the continuance of the onslaught on the local populace. Under Sir Anthony Kingston, English and mercenary forces then moved into Cornwall and summarily executed or murdered many people before the bloodshed finally ceased. Proposals to translate the Prayer Book into Cornish were also suppressed. In total 4,000 people lost their lives in the rebellion.
I ask of those on the Right who want as much melding of Church and State as possible: Would you like the
President of the United States to be able to
dictate which religious books should be used in all churches throughout the country? What if the book you use isn't one of them? Would you find it acceptable that you either change or be punished?
The Marian Martyrs
Edward VI's successor, Mary I (appropriately nicknamed Bloody Mary), decided, hey, she wanted to move the State Church of England away from Protestantism (which it had become under Henry VIII and Edward VI) and back to Roman Catholicism. Many people though, didn't want to change their faith at the State's decree. Mary said, though, that just won't do. The State controls the Church. You have to do what I say, or else.
Marian Martyrs
John Rogers, burnt February 4 Smithfield
Lawrence Saunders, burnt February 8, Coventry
John Hooper, burnt February 9, Gloucester
Rowland Taylor, burnt February, Aldham Common
William Hunter, burnt March 27 Brentwood
Robert Farrar, burnt March 30, Carmathen
Rawlins White, burnt Cardiff
George Marsh, burnt April 24, Chester
William Flower, burnt April 24, Westminster
John Cardmaker, burnt May 30, Smithfield
John Warne, burnt May 30, Smithfield
John Simpson, burnt May 30, Rochford
John Ardeley, burnt May 30, Rayleigh
Thomas Haukes, burnt June 10, Thomas Watts
Nicholas Chamberlain, burnt June 14, Colchester
Thomas Ormond, burnt June 15, Manningtree
William Bamford, burnt June 15, Harwich
I ask of those on the Right who want as much melding of Church and State as possible: Would you want the President of the United States to dictate that only one religion should be practiced in the country? What if a new President wanted to change which religion will be the official religion of the country? Would you find it acceptable that you
either change your religion at the order of the government
or face punishment?
Some of this may seem far-fetched, none of that could happen here, in this day and age. But really, is it far fetched? Aren't moral leaders in the country right now siding with the President and trying to excuse the use of torture by US interrogators?
The Government of the United States should not be using churches to further it's agenda.
When Democrats, progressives, liberals talk about the necessity of maintaining a separation between Church and State, it is not because we hate the Church.
It's because we want to Save the Church.