Huffington Post had an article today that nicely sums up the drumbeat of opposition to gay-marriage. Read it here. This article made me think, how is it that some people fail to understand how and why the federal government, and to a large extent, the state governments, stay well clear of legislating values.
We have no business mixing religion and law in this country. Not only that, but if we are to be a country with religious tolerance, this is the only possible way for us to be.
In this diary, I will explore the role of secularism in the the US. This article will demonstrate that secularism is the only possible approach to sensible governance. First, I will discuss the nature of a perceived conflict between religion and law from a biblical perspective. Second, I will explore the constitutional framework and some of the principles that got us where we are today. Third, I will explore the US from a 'traditional values' perspective, and discuss the historical climate in which the constitution as written. Finally I will explore hypothetically how even legislating from the perspective of the US as a christian nation necessarily leads back to a secular democracy.
One of the biggest arguments against repealing/fire-walling religious-based laws or constitutional amendments appears to go something like this:
"My religion considers X an abomination. We have managed to get bill Y passed prohibiting X. To overturn Y inhibits my right to freely practice my religion." There are myriad variations of this argument, including screaming "you're attacking religion!"
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the free practice of religion is hindered when laws (or calls for laws) that are believed to be mandated by religion are not supported by the state. This is simply not the case, and I will explain below.
The second argument is similar: "X is just wrong. X must be outlawed"
This argument mistakes the moral belief that something "should" not be done, in the moral sense with the mandate that that same something should not be available to do, right or wrong.
***
Is there an inherent conflict between arbitrary laws of man and the laws of God? Let's take a look at some biblical/historical perspective:
First, there is the question of whether enacting christian laws is necessary for fulfillment of faith in Christ, or to live a good and christian life. There is also the related question of whether laws that interfere with christian life must be overturned:
I point first to chapter 22 of Matthew, the teaching of the coins. The most commonly quoted section of this story is the phrase "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". However, in context, there is more than just taxation at stake; the sadducees were trying to trap Jesus into a finding that the laws of God are incompatible with the laws of man. Every time He was presented with an apparent conflict, He refused to find such.
Matthew 23:3 is an even stronger exhortation from Jesus' mouth: "So you must obey them and do everything they tell you, but do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach". What follows is a lengthy tirade against hypocrites and misuse of power, but there is also something more, down in verse 13. Jesus's command to obey the law stands, even when those who are leading the law are being actively counterproductive at the salvation of those who the law was meant to guide. Wow.
Taken in historical context, from the year 33-34 AD to the time of emperor Constantine conversion, the Roman Empire was solidly against any religion that refused to follow their pagan beliefs. Christianity flourished. In the context of proposition 8, it is important to remember that homosexuality was rampant in the ancient world, along with plenty of other things that today would be considered morally abhorrent by Christians. Jesus's refusal to demand a conflict or overthrow of those laws is very telling. Jesus guided his disciples to only one path; that of peaceful disobedience.
An older set of tales shows that this is not a fluke, but a continuous motif that illustrates the relationship between the laws of God and the laws of man: In chapter 1 of Daniel, he shows that the way of his people is superior to that of the Babylonians not by law, but by experiment, showing that the servants of Nebuchadnezzar who were fed vegetables were healthier than those who ate from the king's table. In Daniel 2:36-38, Daniel pays Homage to the king of Babylon without hesitation, even though he doesn't recognize him as his rightful monarch. Again, faith has nothing to fear from adversity. Nowhere in the books or stories regarding the Babylonian exile is there any discussion of the Jews trying to overturn the pagan laws, even long after Daniel is in a position to effect such a change.
It is neither Christianity nor Christians that are threatened by a secularist state. It is only the modern day saducees. In both cases then, the bible demonstrates that the answer to both questions is 'no'.
***
What about the case of religious monuments, or such things as the ten commandments? Well when it comes to monuments, the government seems to take a 'play nice or don't play at all' approach to most of the situations. Or, perhaps more accurately, the government takes a 'come on, why are you making me deal with this junk?' position.
In fact, the law has gone to the point, not only that the government must avoid establishing or favoring religion, but that is must avoid dealing with religion as much as practical.
The other thing that the government does is to step out of the way of religion wherever possible. in this case, the government supported drug use quite recently when it came to religious practice.
Plenty more background can be found here It is clear that the government has a firewall when it comes to religion.
***
The founding fathers had an interesting perspective and a strong incentive to keep the federal government out of the affairs of religion and faith. Catholics in the formerly French colonies the Quakers, the Anglicans, and the Puritans, all had wildly different and conflicting views about their faith and values. Let us for the moment ignore the generally anti-religious environment of the time, and discount some of the more unusual things the founders did. Religious differences .
Here are some of the fault lines that the founders dealt with:
Anglicans didn't trust the authority of the pope over Catholics.
Quakers had been persecuted for many years on religious grounds, especially in puritan New England, and didn't want to risk it recurring.
The puritans left England to escape religious persecution.
Congregationalists didn't trust Methodists, who didn't trust Lutherans, etc.
From wikipedia:
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson(who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to those of deists.
And remember, these are divisions among different Christians, not among atheists, Muslims, Christians, and others. Looking at the historical differences between faiths, keeping the federal government out of religion entirely is the only way to settle those differences short of civil war.
The important thing to remember is that in 1785, even if all of the different founders were deeply religious, it was for exactly that reason that the state was, and still is, kept out of religion. All of the religious invocations that are found in places like the declaration of independence and the constitution are of the vaguest and most general terms, and serve more to illustrate the seriousness of the documents than advance any religious agenda.
From the founder's perspective, a government that stays well clear of religion was the only possible framework to protect each of their varied religious freedoms.
***
Now let's go down the rabbit hole a little further, and play a little bit of pretend. Ignoring all of the case law, statute law, and court decisions, let's pretend that the US is a 'christian nation'. Let's pretend that the establishment clause of the constitution is meant to be read as tracing-paper thin, if existing at all. Let's pretend that laws only need to be based on 'christian values' in order to be held valid, and Christianity is given clear preference over other religious traditions. The only thing the government stays out of are theological debates, and no religion will be stood up as a state religion.
The first thorny issue that needs to be resolved is what defines Christianity and 'christian values'. On one hand, one could attempt to look for a 'pure' christian sect, or one that is the most 'authoritative', and rely on those teachings that re the most 'true' or 'right' as the basis of what makes up a christian. There are plenty of candidates:
The Roman Catholics claim a direct lineage from Christ to Peter and down through the papacy.
The Gnostic faiths believe the exact same thing in terms of the hidden wisdom granted by Christ's kiss.
Some Baptist churches claim a direct lineage from early christian communities with an independent heritage.
Plenty of reformations throughout the years have broken away from one church establishment to bring the congregation back to the 'real' Christianity.
More than one church believes in revelation delivered post-Christ, such as the Mormons.
The problem with that approach is that there is no agreement about a pure religious sect being 'true, generic Christians'. That means that the government would need to stand up one of those religions as the baseline 'Christianity', effectively making it a state religion, which we started out by saying it cannot do, so the government would need to find some other way of defining Christianity.
Another alternative is to embrace a more liberal concept of Christianity, seeking common threads among the many faiths. After all, all Christians adhere to a basic set of core beliefs right? Well, not exactly. Even as useless and milquetoast an answer as 'a christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ' won't help. read this, this, and even about saint Josaphat. If the Gautama Buddha can be canonized as a saint, an exemplar of what it means to follow Christ, even though he didn't have a christian bone in his body, that would imply that anyone who follows him would also make a good christian. This could lead to someone making the argument that they are a good christian, and following the teachings of Jesus, while at the same time denying the existence of Jesus Himself.
The trick here is that, in the case of the Buddhist claiming to be a christian, they are making a tenuous argument, but an argument nonetheless. That begs the question: "an argument to whom?"
Suddenly a theological ruling is required as to what beliefs and values are or are not 'christian values'. As we discussed in the setup, this would necessitate the government wading into a theological argument about what beliefs and values are 'christian' or not.
Even from the outset, then, the government can define neither Christianity nor christian values. However, we don't need to stop there.
Let's ignore the whole argument about what makes a christian or christian values, and assume that the absurd cases will take care of themselves, and we don't need to worry about situations like a prayer for favorable reincarnation being offered at a public school. What if we just appeal to unity among christian beliefs in practice?
That holds well for many of the things that are already illegal, and unquestionably so, but it doesn't take long to find questions with no clear answer.
What about some of the classic questions of legality though, like childhood drinking? Roman Catholics celebrate mass with a sip of wine for everyone receiving communion. Contrast that with those faiths that believe drinking should be forbidden completely.
Going back to the focus of this diary, Prop 8, we still run into trouble. Plenty of christian sects are supportive of gay rights, including some major ones, like Episcopalians. If there are major schisms in the intent of policy, then if we're going to be consistent with even the most basic freedoms of religion as described earlier, the government can't wade in on that debate either. In fact, major churches have come out on both sides of every major political hot button issue, in some chases leading to schisms within those churches.
It is important to note too, from a christian standpoint, that there are many issues about which Jesus never spoke, including the two most hot button issues of the today, abortions and gay rights. We can infer plenty but there are no direct words.
So even embracing the government as a "christian institution" can't break the fundamental rule of government staying away from religion. A 'secularist' government which keeps well clear of religion and the sticky issues it involves, is the only possible outcome of a society that pretends to have a freedom of religion.
***
One particular quote from the huffington post article stands out: "In essence, this establishes secularism as the only acceptable basis for moral judgment on the part of voters,"
Well, actually, the answer is 'yes'. The federal government has no business legislating morality. remember that the philosophy of the US government is that people should be free to do whatever they want with as little government intervention as possible. The government steps in only when necessary to keep things working correctly. That is why most laws, rather than mandating an good activity, prohibit bad activities.
Just because something is morally wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't give it protection by the law. Remember, going down that path leads to worse things, such as prohibiting the sale of books that discuss how a 3 day old corpse could disappear from a tomb, since 'necromancy is wrong'.
For me, as a Christian, I have never felt a conflict with any lifestyle freedom for someone else protected by law, whether I agreed with the exercise of that freedom or not. The main question in my mind is whether I am setting a good example, and loving those on paths I disagree with as I love myself.