Should religious organizations be prevented from participating in politics?

No

1 of 26

by Jessica Connor

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

How ironic is it that the same people who plea with cries of "tolerance and diversity" are the same ones discriminating against Christianity's religious freedoms all in the name of this thing we call "Separation of Church and State"? They also use this statement as a way to try to deny Christians of their deep American roots in Democracy. They claim that this idea is portrayed in the US Constitution. Are they correct?

The answer is quite simple: No. They are wrong. Groups such as the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State have used this excuse repeatedly for the specific purpose of trying to justify the elimination of religious views from the public eye. This has led to the decline of morals and ethics in our country today. Unfortunately, countless Americans have been taught that this is actually part of the Constitution and believed a lie.

Let's look at the First Amendment: It states,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Clearly, the above amendment written this way to prevent Congress from establishing a nation wide religious denomination and so that Congress could not require Americans to adopt one specific religion. It is also intended to prohibit the use of tax dollars to support a specific religion or in any way, showing favor to one particular religion.

The popularly misunderstood phrase, "Separation of Church and State" came from a letter that was written by Thomas Jefferson to a group called the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. The reason it was written was because the Danbury Baptists had raised concerns that the Congregationalist Church would become the new state sponsored religion. Jefferson sent the letter to assure them that based on the first amendment, there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. In that letter, Jefferson refers to the first amendment saying:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to no one other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and state."

The "wall" has also been grossly misunderstood. The concept was intended to portray a one directional idea that would protect the church from the state. The thought was that the world or politics should not be allowed to corrupt the church, but the church would still have the right to teach biblical values to its people.This ensures that the government cannot run the church, but allows for religious or Christian principals to be permissible in government affairs since ones moral values would probably come from the biblical values they would learn at church, for example. Because it is not illegal for a Christian or someone of a different religious background to get involved in politics, naturally, they would likely bring along with them their religious convictions.

Later, this phrase was mentioned again by James Madison when he described the reason for the first amendment as being prompted because, "The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.".

The probable reason for this is that they had just come from a country that had too many religious dictatorships in order to form a country (The United States of America)based on religious freedom.

It is also worth mentioning that another purpose for the first amendment was to prevent government from interfering with the free practice of religion, instead of excluding the voice of religion from government affairs altogether, which is what groups the AU and ACLU among many others are teaching.

Upon researching websites of groups such as the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, they provide great information on other various documents written by historical icons like Thomas Jefferson, President George Washington, James Madison and others. However, it became very clear to me that while reading their documents that the interpretation that they provided was skewed. Anyone with two eyes and a brain could see clearly that the interpretation was not correct.

Let's take for instance this excerpt from a letter that Jefferson wrote to Elbridge Gerry in 1799: (Sources www.au.org
"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

I was not able in a short period of time while writing this article to track down the whole letter. I say this because it only makes sense that in order to understand a key sentence like this, one would need to read the entire letter in order for it's true meaning to be known. Anyway, based upon this short quote, I would say that it's pretty obvious that the idea being conveyed here is that once again, Mr.Jefferson was defending the original idea of preventing a government run religion. It does not seem plausible to support any other theory such as what the AU likes to claim as proof that religious thoughts are not welcomed in government.

Here is another. In this case, Thomas Jefferson was writing to the Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London Connecticut in 1809
"No provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority."

Again, not having the entire letter on hand, I think that just using this little blurb provided (courtesy of www.au.org) cannot really give us the full picture of what was being said. However, based on what is written in that quotation, lets be clear about one thing: It does not say that nothing should be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of civil authority against the enterprises of conscience. I think that this simply re-confirms what Jefferson said in the letter to the Danbury Baptists about allowing people their freedom of religion and worship without the government being allowed to decide what can be discussed at churches across our country.

Back to basics... Here is a brief lesson in how to research something: on the website of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, excerpts from quotes of speeches were given (versus providing the whole letter or speech). This creates a problem because it can easily be taken out of context. In fact, it happens in this same manor when one uses a Bible verse to prove a point. The Bible is often misquoted or misinterpreted by extracting one verse only without the person knowing or providing the history and purpose for the verse. It causes people to become confused. This is why people who study the Bible should (and generally do) learn the 20/20 rule: Know or study the twenty versus before the verse you are focusing on, and know or study the 20 versus following. This helps us keep things in their proper context. Sometimes though, it is necessary to even have an entire historical overview and knowing the 20 versus before and the 20 after just is not enough. It seems to me that this would be helpful when studying quotations like the ones I've listed from the website of the Americans United page.

To prove that point, consider this: If we read just one sentence out of a whole speech or letter, wouldn't it be the equivelant of opening a long novel, reading a paragraph from the last chapter and claiming to fully understand its context and the entire story?

Let's get back to the subject at hand. The purpose of this article was to prove that the idea of separation of church and state was not actually in the first amendment of the US Constitution. Since that is a fact, even though all of the other quotes that I was able to find (which can be dug up on www.au.org), were just quotes and not whole letters, with the exception of a couple- the truth is that all of those letters combined and even separate from each other did not prove that Separation of Church and state is Constitutional. All letters that I could find did not prove that the misunderstood idea was intended to keep religious viewpoints out of our governments. Some of the quotations used by the AU's website were referencing why Christianity cannot be the correct religion, or how to choose a pastor for the church, among many other irrelevant topics. Listing these quotes is not at all a problem, but when using it to prove your interpretation of the first amendment of the United States Constitution and teaching the general public to believe a lie...it becomes problematic. It creates society of ignorance who has the intention to exclude freedom of religion all together- specifically Christianity.

Further more, all of these founding fathers were men of God, The Christian God. They were deeply "religious". They were not Muslims, Hindus, or any other such religion. They referenced the God of Abraham, Lord Almighty, Heavenly Father, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, our Saviour, our redeemer, blessings and even used scripture versus in their proper context when writing letters or giving speeches.

If the phrase "Separation of church and state" were ever intended to keep God out of politics and government...these guys not only would have never wound up being the historical political icons that they are today, but they certainly wouldn't sought to have God kicked out of the White House and the halls of Congress! Thats just crazy! Whats more, the Bible even says that God appoints man to his purpose in life. He appoints the rulers and those in the governments. Do you really think God would have appointed such men of great leadership for the purpose of creating nasty moral decline and ignorance in our country like there is today? There was a time when the people in our country sought after a Holy God with pure intentions. Look at how much has changed in the name of progress. Some changes have been good indeed, but for the most part, it's been chaotic and horrible.

Unfortunate ly, certain groups have used the first amendment to try to disestablish churches and freedoms of religion...specifica lly Christianity. Schools and court houses are being bullied into removing such icons as the ten commandments, pictures of Jesus, the motto "In God We Trust', and even the preamble to the state's constitution. Groups like the ACLU have even caused a ruckus over a valedictorian graduate at a high school because she wanted to thank God in her graduation speech last year as being an important influence in her life. They are also trying to make it illegal for military chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus...yet they have no issue with them praying in the name of Ala, Buddha, or any other god for the most part.

If it sounds like I am suggesting that "Separation of Church and State" specifically and almost exclusively attacks Christianity- I am. Today's culture in America only amplifies what First President George Washington said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.". Daniel Webster also had a similar thought on the topic "...If we abide by the principals taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our prosterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity," (Halley's Bible Handbook 24th Edition p18, 1962)

According to the websites of the AU and like minded bloggers that I checked out, their biggest complaints had to do with leaders in the Christian world like Dr.James Dobson, Pat Robertson and others. They seem to focus a lot on the ministries they are leading according to their religious convictions and also focus a lot on the off-the-wall comments that Pat Robertson often makes. Let's get one thing straight: Neither of these men are God's personal spokesmen. Both are human beings and are not infaliable. They make mistakes and will make many more. Not all Christians agree with both of these men one hundred percent of the time. Nevertheless, these are men who are acting according to their own religious and spiritual convictions. Last time I checked, there was nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is constitutional according to the real first amendment. It is the right of every American Citizen in this country to do so...so lets stop using it as evidence of how crazy Christians are and use the historical documents that were provided in the first place to solve the issue. These documents are the only factual evidence that can prove or disprove the correct interpretation of separation of church and state. Now that the basic facts are known, please teach an under-informed individual the truth so we can change the lack of education on the subject. If you must, research this yourself. You will find it very interesting at the very least.

Learn more about this author, Jessica Connor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.