RLTV PODCAST: Jason Hines on The Church, Same-Sex Marriage, and Public Policy
Michael Peabody interviews Jason Hines, attorney and Andrews University seminary student, about the topic of same-sex marriage and why religious groups need to be careful to protect liberty of conscience in their advocacy on this issue.
Jason Hines on the Church, Same-Sex Marriage, and Public Policy [12:33m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadWashington House of Representatives Attempts to Facilitate Union Take-Over of Religious Child Care Centers
By Michael D. Peabody, Esq.
So what’s the biggest threat to religious liberty? According to J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the answer is found in the strings attached to government funding of religious activity. Earlier this month, during a speech for the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, Walker said, “What the government funds, it always regulates. Government-sponsored religion is always bad for religion. How can we raise a prophetic fist with one hand and take government money with the other?”
The truth of Walker’s statement was underscored just last week when the Washington State House of Representatives passed HB 1329, now working its way through the state Senate, that cleared the way for unionization of private and most non-profit child care centers if they take government subsidies for as little as one child, and even declares the centers’ employees “government employees” for the purposes of unionization.
In fact, HB 1329 openly declares that “child care center directors” and “workers” are “public employees” for the purposes of collective bargaining, if at least one child attending the center received government subsidies. It further declared that “solely for the purposes of collective bargaining, the Governor is the ‘public employer.’”
There is an exemption for large non-profits with more than 200 regional affiliates or that send more than $3,000,000 in “membership dues” to a national organization. The term “regional affiliates” is not defined although it is believed to primarily be aimed at large organizations such as the YWCA. Large churches might be able to escape through this loophole if they can claim that the local congregations count toward the total of “regional affiliates” and that money sent to the national organization counts toward membership dues, but that will not be an easy argument for most churches that happen to run child care centers to win.
The House analysis claims that the bill would allow private child care centers to continue to have the right to “chose, direct, and terminate” child care workers. However this is boilerplate language for most contracts between employers and employees and it is easy to foresee scenarios in which religious child care organizations would be required to work their way through the union grievance process and defend their religiously-based decisions to a non-religious entity. How can a religious child care center fulfill its faith-based mission when it has to answer to a secular labor union?
At a time when child care is expensive and parents are having to work longer hours to make ends meet, religious child care centers that have accepted subsidized children are in a particularly precarious position. Local child care centers are generally small, mission-focused organizations with little money to defend themselves at the legislature. Sponsors of HB 1329, including the labor unions, are banking on this government dependence to generate pressure to dive into the non-profit sector and take over religious employers. In this case, the labor unions are on the verge of taking over an entire industry.
There are Federal laws which might pre-empt this legislation, or as an alternative, a basis for non-profit exclusion, as well as U.S. Constitutional considerations, but it could be years before these issues could be sorted out by the courts. In the meantime, if HB 1329 passes in its current form, and barring any court orders stopping it from going into effect, religious child care centers might either have to accept unionization or close their doors.
While there are many good reasons why government funding is necessary, and it is not at all certain that HB 1329 will become law, I would not be surprised to see similar legislation cropping up in more states as labor unions take advantage of government strings to try to control the elusive non-profit sector.
More on government funding to come in a future newsletter.
For more information about HB 1329:
- Read the House Bill Analysis at:http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1329%20HBA%20CL%2009.pdf
- You can track HB 1329 and read legislative summaries and materials athttp://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summary.aspx?bill=1329&year=2009
- Also, be sure to read NRLA President Greg Hamilton’s testimony, in opposition to HB 1329, that he presented before the Washington Senate’s Labor, Commerce, and Consumer Protection Committee on February 18, 2010 athttp://www.npuc.org/site/1/docs/HB_1329_Senate_Testimony_2-18-10.pdf
Some Thoughts on the Implications of the Same-Sex Marriage Trial for Religious Minorities
California’s debate regarding same-sex marriage will become a national issue if the United States Supreme Court decides to hear an appeal from either side on the outcome of the recently concluded Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. In Perry, Federal trial judge Vaughn Walker was asked to decide whether Proposition 8, which reversed a prior California Supreme Court decision upholding gay marriage, was constitutional.
Putting the emotional issues aside, this is the cold reality: If the U.S. Supreme Court takes this case and decides to uphold Proposition 8, this outcome could strip away fundamental principles that also protect religious minorities.
In the last 100 years, the Court has overturned popular state laws that prohibited interracial marriage and laws that forced sterilization of children of unwed mothers who were thought by state legislators to be genetically “immoral.” In these cases, states defended their laws on the grounds that they were protecting the safety and morality of the citizens, but the Court reviewed the cases using the higher level of scrutiny found in the case of United States v. Carolene Products (1938). In Footnote Four, Justice Harlan Stone wrote that cases that met three criteria were subject to a higher level of scrutiny.
A law would receive the higher level of scrutiny, or “strict scrutiny,” (see appendix for an outline) if it:
1. On its face violates a provision of the Constitution (facial challenge).
2. Attempts to distort or rig the political process.
3. Discriminates against minorities, particularly those who lack sufficient numbers or power to seek redress through the political process.
In other words, the majority does not always win just because it is a majority. This reasoning has been applied to the school prayer cases, civil rights cases, and a number of other discrimination cases where the Court has ruled against an abusive majority. The trend of upholding the individual rights of minorities, and in particular religious minorities, has been the subject of intense criticism by many on the right who view some individual rights that run contrary to their religious beliefs as a threat to Christian America.
Added to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Loving v. Virginia which found that marriage was a fundamental right, unless there is some major shift in the Court’s approach, the Court will likely apply strict scrutiny to Proposition 8.
The California Supreme Court had based its decision upholding Proposition 8, not on a moral or social safety reason, but simply that the majority should win by virtue of its majority status. The California court simply said that it did not have the power to overturn the will of the voters, and in fact held that “Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause.”
Thus, the Court admitted that Proposition 8 created a carve-out in the overall spectrum of rights. Justice Moreno, in his lone dissent, stated that “[T]he aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning.”
There is no legal distinction between protected classes in California, regardless of one’s religious qualms, and now that sexual orientation has been exempted from marriage rights (recognized as fundamental rights in federal and state jurisprudence), religious minorities, who have struggled in California, are now subject to exemption.
All this goes to the U.S. Supreme Court at a time when minority religious groups have been facing a rollback of rights that reverses the trend of applying strict scrutiny. Since the Employment Division v. Smith case was decided in 1990, the Court has begun to recognize an increasing number of exceptions to individual rights to practice one’s faith without governmental intervention.
If the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, it will effectively eviscerate the principles found in Carolene Products and will create a national destabilization of individual rights. This may not matter in states where religious minorities are protected by the good will of the majority, but in other states rights of religious minority groups may start to slowly disappear.
###
You can read the trial briefs and trial transcripts at the American Foundation for Equal Rights website. (We do not necessarily endorse all of their arguments, but AFER provides a valuable storehouse of the case documents in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.)
###
——
BRIEF OUTLINE OF STRICT SCRUTINY
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Third, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this ‘least restrictive means’ requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.
Pat Robertson, the Earthquake in Haiti, and the Righteousness of God
In 1999, comedian George Carlin wrote, “Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you.”
I thought about Carlin’s statement as I watched a clip of Pat Robertson blaming this week’s earthquake in Haiti on a mythical pact that the people of Haiti supposedly made with the Devil in order to become independent of France over two centuries ago. ““[E]ver since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor,” Robertson said.
Unfortunately, this was not the first time that Pat Robertson or other preachers acting under the guise of Christianity twisted history and theology in order to explain various tragic events. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Jerry Falwell had this to say, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”
After the December 26, 2004 Indonesian tsunami, John MacLeod, a minister in the First Presbyterian Church of Scotland, wrote, “Some of the places most affected by this tsunami attracted pleasure-seekers from all over the world. It has to be noted that the wave arrived on the Lord’s Day, the day that God has set apart to be observed the world over by a holy resting from all employments and recreations that are lawful on other days.”
After a massive tragedy, it is human nature to try to find out why it happened. The victims must have done something wrong, after all, isn’t everything pre-ordained by God?
This finger pointing was an approach that Christ Himself repeatedly rejected, whether it had to do with blaming a man’s parents for blindness, the experience of violent oppression, or even a natural disaster. In Luke 13:1-5 (NIV), we read the following exchange:
“Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
There is no magic formula for avoiding tragedy. Instead, we need to focus on our own lives before we start placing blame on others. “”Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3). It doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t eventually point out your brother’s eye goober, but be sure that you don’t hit him in the face with the big stick in your eye when you turn to look at him.
It is so easy to fall into the trap of perverting the good news of Jesus Christ by making Him look like an arbitrary tyrant intent on destroying people who have offended Him. Many people struggle through their faith or leave altogether when they can’t explain why bad things happen to good people or why a “loving” God would willingly torture people throughout eternity.
Jonathan Edwards terrified a generation of New Englanders when he preached in 1741, “The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire. . . . You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder” (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God).
Theology along these lines, not found in the Bible, would explain why so many American Christians actively support torture or a preliminary attack on Iran. It explains the push for the death penalty against homosexuals in Uganda. It provided the framework for the Inquisition and cleansing of “heresy” throughout the middle ages. If God is just, and is our example, then why shouldn’t Christians seek to do His dirty work on earth? If forces of evil are going to be tortured in hell, why not send them there early and prevent them from leading the innocent astray?
This doctrine of eternal torture in hell violates principles that most decent human beings hold themselves to – it involves disproportionate punishment and invokes the cognitive dissonance of eternal bliss with the knowledge that another is undergoing eternal torment.
If God was like this, George Carlin’s sense of dark irony would be well-placed. The universe would have two sides, a bright living room where angels float on clouds, and a basement so evil that it would exceed the worst that Satan himself could conceive.
But is that really the character of God? No.
One of the biggest contributions that Seventh-day Adventism has made to Christianity is the rediscovery of the Biblical doctrine that hell is not eternal torment. There are many complete explanations of the Biblical research behind this position online (click here for a good place to start). Essentially Adventists believe that “the wicked . . . shall be destroyed forever” (Psalm 92:7), and that those who accept Christ can, “according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13).
So what does this have to do with religious liberty? Many of the strongest challenges to freedom of conscience and religious liberty on a global basis come from those who do not understand the reality of the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and instead make Him out to be a tyrant. They consider themselves His deputies.
Only when Christians begin to understand the truth of the gospel can they begin to see how important it is to tell the truth the consistency of His character and the all sufficient power of His love. “If you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,’” (John 8:31,32).
To learn how you can help the people of Haiti, visit: www.adra.org/Haiti
Dr. Adrian Westney Passes Away
Before coming to the United States in 1960, Westney planted churches and pastored in his homeland of Jamaica, as well as in Barbados and Guyana. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Theology from Columbia Union College (now Washington Adventist University) in Takoma Park, Md., a Master of Arts in Religion from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University (Mich.), and a Doctor of Divinity from Howard University in Washington, D.C. He subsequently pastored in Virginia and directed Youth Ministries for Allegheny West Conference. In 1969 he accepted a call to serve as principal of Pine Forge Academy in Pine Forge, Pa., where he hosted the first alumni homecoming weekend. From 1976-89 he served as associate director of education for the Columbia Union Conference, and then went on to direct Public Affairs and Religious Liberty until his retirement in 1995.
But Dr. Westney did not stop in 1995. He continued to work tirelessly in the field of religious liberty by helping people with workplace religious liberty problems and hosting a radio program, “”Talking About Freedom” which aired weekly on WGTS radio in Washington, DC.
Despite his busy schedule, Dr. Westney found time to serve on the advisory panel of ReligiousLiberty.TV. His wise counsel and encouragement helped make this independent website a reality in the summer of 2008. His insistence on having a “clear purpose” helped keep this project on track. He did not make impulsive recommendations, but instead insisted on making sure that the tracks were laid out carefully and clearly so that the message was not lost in the prevailing political chaos.
I will miss him very much.
- Michael Peabody, Editor
The Manhattan Declaration: Approach with Caution
Last month a group of over 150 Christian leaders from the Evangelical, Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox faiths united to sign The Manhattan Declaration (http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/), a document declaring that signers will not compromise on the issues of sanctity of human life, the traditional definition of marriage, and the “rights of conscience and religious liberty.” They have pledged themselves to “civil disobedience” in order to avoid violating these Christian standards. As of this writing, they have been joined by nearly 250,000 who have signed the document online.
The Declaration, drafted by Chuck Colson, Dr. Robert George, and Dr. Timothy George, is in direct response to the recent gay marriage debate and is designed to provide a common base of support for activities such as the Catholic Church’s recent high pressure lobbying of Congress to eliminate language from the national health care bill that would have funded abortion.
While they have claimed they will commit “civil disobedience,” essentially this amounts to refusing to perform activities inconsistent with their faith while enjoying non-profit 501(c)(3) status, and signals a willingness to withdraw from providing humanitarian public services if the government makes such activities a prerequisite for non-profit status or funding. In other words, a Catholic adoption agency may shutter its doors rather than provide services for same-sex couples.
Although the groups have not been able to agree on fundamental theological issues, their unity around these points held in common may initially seem to be an admirable step forward in reasserting the Christian voice in America’s culture wars.
So far so good – churches shouldn’t be compelled by the government to do things that violate their sincerely held beliefs. However, the Declaration does not stop with three issues that many American Christians would easily agree upon as protective of their faith. In the midst of the statement on promoting a “thriving marriage culture,” the writers tuck in an ominous sentence that seemingly comes out of nowhere, “But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.” (Emphasis added.)
The writers do not clearly define what they mean by a “thriving marriage culture.” Since same-sex marriage is merely a hindrance to achieving this goal, there must be something beyond defining what constitutes marriage. Culture is a broad sweeping concept, and passing laws would affect not just adherents but everybody in society.
And what does it mean to “rebuild” such a marriage culture? Despite the imperfections of modern family life, what laws could be passed to restore a “thriving marriage culture”? There are two things that families could use more of: money and time. Tax breaks might help families by relieving a portion economic stress but such changes might only increase family budgets by at most 10% and would require cuts in government services benefiting low income families. Time is a much more valuable commodity and if the supply and demand chain were broken one day a week, families would have opportunity to relax because there would be no reason for the majority of people to go to work that day.
Declaration signers know that it is impossible to pass a law requiring people to “be nice.” However, things can be done to help families. If they are to reinvigorate a thriving marriage culture, sweeping changes must be made across the board to empower families. Right now, with 24/7 commerce it is difficult to give employees a uniform day of rest that they can count on each week so that they can plan family time. (See http://www.keepsundayspecial.org.uk/research/index.php?id=38 for the secular health and safety benefits of a uniform day of rest.) Promoting the family time inherent in Sabbath rest would appear to promote a thriving marriage culture, and would at least require economic penalties against those businesses who required their employers to lose this family time by engaging in commerce.
Such efforts are underway in Europe where Germany has passed a national day of rest for most sectors of the economy. (See http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,462439,00.html to read where the law is being used as a mechanism to block a minority group from practicing its faith.)
In America we are quickly reaching the critical point where expansion of freedom is viewed by some as a threat to religious liberty. Advocates for religious freedom who once took an almost permissive approach so long as the rights and safety of innocent third parties were protected are now actively calling for those types of freedoms to be curtailed.
It is a delicate balancing act, and churches do well to protect their integrity. But if they are also using the power of this unity to “reform laws” and “rebuild the culture” then we are witnessing the emergence of a new threat to liberty. After all, if the problems we face are resulting from too much freedom, a restoration of a prior culture would mean a rollback in freedom.
From a strictly human perspective, the document is troubling as well. It focuses on human power to effect changes in human laws which will in turn effect the hearts of the people – an approach that Christ repeatedly rejected in His earthly ministry. If Christians want to rebuild a moral culture, they must be willing to preach the gospel but rely on the power of God to change hearts – they should not hide behind the power of government.
We are dancing on shifting sands. It may be tempting and even seem safer to join the crowd and push for new laws to change society. It can be frightening to run the risk of appearing in favor of “immorality” if you stand for the principles of separation of church and state, and try to protect the rights of both the religious and the secular. It is true that there are tremendous forces coming at churches from the left but the answer is not for the people of faith to become the threats themselves. Those on left and right should seek to protect themselves and their organizations from those on the opposite side, yet not force their will on the rest of society.
I am afraid we are seeing the emergence of a snowball effect – the forces now assembling will do whatever it takes, and say whatever they need to in order to gain power, adherents, and confidence and will eventually threaten the well-being of all who refuse to conform.
We have no reason to doubt that those who drafted and are signing the Declaration are sincere and trying to do what they believe is best for America. There are many good reasons why it may seem a good idea, but we should raise a voice of caution regarding the unintended consequences of this approach. Christians tempted to set aside theological differences, which include differences in how grace and salvation are viewed so significant that they led to the battles of the Reformation and Inquisition, and unite on points held in common in order to change society should recall the unholy results of such unions. From a Christian perspective, government and even church edicts cannot change hearts, only God can.
As we are admonished in 2 Timothy 3:5, “They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!” (New Living Translation)
Calif. Initiative Round-up – Outlawing Divorce, Legalizing Pot, and Christmas Music
In California, voters are allowed to promote ballot initiatives on almost any subject, including those that can fundamentally change the state constitution. Here are some initatives that are currently in circulation as of November 18, 2009. Only a few will make it to the ballot, but it is interesting to see what changes some want to see in the law.
Here’s what your neighbors may be voting on in the next election if the promoters of these initatives gather enough signatures. Can you trust the voters with your rights? The “power of the majority” can cut both ways, which is why I believe that there are certain rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution which the “majority” cannot touch. However, given the recent California Supreme Court decision on the marriage cases, every right is apparently up for grabs, including, ironically, the right to divorce. Editor
The links are to the Secretary of State’s website where you can download the full text of the proposed initatives.
1364. (09-0011)
Reinstates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 06/22/09 Circulation Deadline: 11/19/09 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponent: Charles Lowe (800) 778-2998
Repeals the current provision in California’s Constitution that states only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Provides that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to modify or change the curriculum in any school. Clarifies that the initiative is not intended, and shall not be interpreted, to mandate or require clergy of any church or religious institution to perform a service or duty inconsistent with his or her faith. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. (09-0011.) (Full Text)
1367. (09-0014)
Mandatory Drug and Alcohol Testing for Members of the Legislature. Initiative Statute.
Summary Date: 07/13/09 Circulation Deadline: 12/10/09 Signatures Required: 433,971
Proponents: Dorothy Cummings and Gary Ellis
Requires all legislators elected subsequent to passage of this initiative to be tested for the illegal use of drugs and the “habitual use of alcohol.” Prevents a legislator who tests positive from performing his or her official duties or from getting paid until that legislator completes a substance abuse program at his or her own expense. Requires a legislator to permanently forfeit his or her office upon a second positive test. Provides exception for use of medicinal marijuana under a doctor’s care. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Probably no significant change in state costs in most years. (09-0014.) (Full Text)
1374. (09-0022)
Changes California Law to Legalize, Regulate, and Tax Marijuana. Initiative Statute.
Summary Date: 09/08/09 Circulation Deadline: 02/05/10 Signatures Required: 433,971
Proponent: Joe Rogoway, Omar Figueroa, and James J. Clark (415) 946-5591
Repeals state laws that make it a crime for people 21 years old or older to use, possess, sell, cultivate, or transport marijuana or industrial hemp, except laws that make it a crime to drive while impaired or to contribute to the delinquency of a minor. Expunges state convictions based on the repealed marijuana-related laws. Requires state and local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana. Requires taxes to be spent on education, healthcare, environmental programs, public works, and state parks. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings in the several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major new excise, income, and sales tax revenues related to the production and sale of marijuana products. (09-0022.) (Full Text)
1379. (09-0026)
Eliminates the Law Allowing Married Couples to Divorce. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 10/23/09 Circulation Deadline: 03/22/10 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponent: John Marcotte
Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings. (09-0026.) (Full Text)
1383. (09-0030)
Requires Public Schools to Offer Christmas Music. Initiative Statute.
Summary Date: 10/30/09 Circulation Deadline: 03/29/10 Signatures Required: 433,971
Proponents: Merry Susan Hyatt and David Joseph Hyatt
Requires public schools to offer an opportunity for students to listen to or perform Christmas music during the holiday season. Requires schools to notify students’ parents or guardians twenty-one days before the music will be played or performed so that students can opt-out of listening to or performing the music. Provides that a civil lawsuit may be brought to enforce these requirements. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor annual costs to school districts. (09-0030.) (Full Text)
A Church Scorned: Church, State, Marriage, and the Quest for Power
“And so, by the power vested in me by the State of ___ and Almighty God, I now pronounce you husband and wife. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”
This pronouncement is the point in a religious wedding ceremony where the power of the state and the power of the Almighty God come together to fuse a couple in holy matrimony. To date, the vast majority of debates on same-sex marriage have focused on whether it is morally or spiritually correct. However, the foundational issue is whether the church should seek the right to control marriages performed outside of its walls. At its core, this is a battle that challenges the tenuous yet mutually protective balance between church and state, and the results matter regardless of what you believe about same-sex marriage.
Weddings are typically joyful experiences and even the most avowed atheists have not tried to prevent ministers from claiming the power of the State in performing the ceremony. However, even though the church and the state may happily hold hands at the wedding, they cannot dance together gracefully into a long-lasting marriage unless each has great respect for the non-overlapping rights and obligations of the other.
Unlike the newlyweds, the state is not obligated to “forsake all others,” when it comes to religious viewpoints. The state has little discretion when it comes to solemnizing marriages, and absent an amendment to the constitution itself, is limited only by statutes having to do with the consent of the parties, age of the parties, and whether there are more than two parties involved. On the other hand, churches have very broad discretion to solemnize marriages and can refuse to do so for virtually any reason. This broad discretion has not been challenged.
However, when the state begins to recognize marriages that churches find inappropriate, many churches are offended – churches feel almost as if the state has decided to “cheat” on the church. And hell hath no fury like a church scorned.
Regardless of the fact that same-sex couples have sought ceremonies in churches that will perform them or have sought civil ceremonies, conservative churches have begun to step in and intervene and have relied upon the power of the majority to force changes in otherwise permissive state constitutions. This is not only a battle between secularism and religion. It is a battle between competing religious ideologies, and ultimately a battle for spiritual control.
Alonzo T. Jones, writing in his 1891 classic, The Two Republics: or, Rome and the United States of America, makes an astonishing observation about the way that the Medieval church accumulated political power over the state.
“Another most prolific source of general corruption was the church’s assumption of authority to regulate, and that by law, the whole question of the marriage relation, both in the Church and in the state. ”The first aggression . . . which the Church made on the state, was assuming the cognizance over all questions and causes relating to marriage. ” — Milmaii.21 (Click here to read the entire passage.)
While we are not at a point in history where the church is asserting direct political control, we can see that the church may be headed down this pathway yet again. After describing the circumstances and the Church’s methods, Jones continues:
“[I]n accordance with the rest of the theocratical legislation of Constantine and the bishops, the precepts of the Scripture in relation to marriage and divorce were adopted with heavy penalties, as the laws of the empire. As the church had assumed ‘cognizance over all questions relating to marriage,’ it followed that marriage not celebrated by the church was held to be but little better than an illicit connection.”
The church continued to assert control over legal marriage for centuries thereafter. In March of 1880, the Canadian Parliament considered a bill that would allow a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister. The debate quickly turned to an argument over whether the church or the state had the power to regulate marriage. There were Protestant and Jewish participants in the debate, the entirety of which can be read above, however the Catholic representative quickly asserted that the Church had “supreme power over marriage” and that the state must stand down.
“Pius IX, in his letter to the King of Sardinia, dated 19th September, 1852, says : ” It is a dogma of faith that marriage was raised by Our Lord Jesus Christ to the dignity of a sacrament.” Would you know the doctrine? The Council of Trent speaks: ‘Whosoever says that marriage is not really and truly one of the seven sacraments of the Evangelical Law, let him be anathema.’ If marriage is a sacrament, and such is our unalterable belief, the Church only, by divine right, has supreme power over Christian marriage. In fact the Church alone is the dispenser of the sacraments. St. Paul teaches us this in his first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 4, in which he says : ‘Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Jesus Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.’ The Pope Gelasius, writing to the Emperor Austasins told him plainly: ‘Although your dignity raises you above the human race, you are nevertheless subject to the Bishops in matters relating to the faith, and to the delivering of the sacraments.’
And what is a sacrament, if it be not a means subordinate in its nature to the object of religious society? The Church has, therefore, supreme power over marriage. . . . We now arrive at the true question as it presents itself to us. We shall easily solve it. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier brings in a Bill which may meet with our approval, but he has just delivered a speech which I cannot accept as an expression of the ideas and principles of Catholics upon this question of marriage. What does the hon. member maintain? That this Parliament has the undoubted right to establish absolute impediments to marriage, and the not less undoubted power of dispensing with them. I protest against such a declaration, and I emphatically deny that this Parliament has a right to legislate as to the validity of marriage. Marriage is a sacrament; the state has nothing to say as to the administration of the sacrament, and, by consequence, as to the validity of marriage. That is an ecclesiastical contract over which religious society alone has a power, which cannot be vested in the state.” (Emphasis added. Click here to read the debate.)
In the eyes of the Catholic church at the time, only sacramental marriage was legitimate. Again, the current debate relates to this history. Does the church or the state have the power to define marriage? If the church has the power, which church?
In California, church and state collided on marriage issues in 1948 when the Catholic Church sued claiming that the state had violated its religious liberty through a long-standing civil prohibition on interracial marriages. The Court issued its ruling in Perez v. Sharp,198 P.2d 17, 32 Cal. 2d 711 (1948) (also known as Perez v. Lippold). Those opposed to interracial marriage raised three major arguments: First, they argued that the law was really not discriminatory. Secondly, they discussed the effect on the children. Third they asserted that, in this case, the state had the power over the church’s sacrament because of an interest in promoting the “health safety, and general welfare.” Ironically, these three arguments once used against the church’s request provide the backbone of the current arguments against same-sex marriage.
The Court’s majority found that the church was right and that the “anti-miscegenation” law was unconstitutional. Justice Shenk, dissenting in favor of the prohibition, wrote that the law was not discriminatory because, “Each [party seeking to marry a member of a different race] has the right and the privilege of marrying within his or her own group.”
In language that appears extremely offensive, Shenk turned his attention to the children resulting from interracial unions, “It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”
Justice Shenk then stated that prohibiting interracial marriage was consistent with the “peace and safety” provisions of the Constitution. Shenk’s arguments should be familiar if you are following the current debate, and in fact several of the same cases are regularly cited including Cantwell v. Connecticut, and Reynolds v. United States.
“Other considerations are presented in connection with petitioners’ contentions that their religious liberty is being infringed. The First Amendment to the United states Constitution declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces this fundamental concept of liberty as expressed in the First Amendment and renders the states likewise incompetent to transgress it. However, this religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.’ Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 110, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 146 A.L.R. 81; Gospel Army v. City of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704. It has long been held that conduct, consisting of practices and acts, remains subject to regulation for the health, safety and general welfare. For example, a legislative determination that monogamy is the ‘law of social life’ has been held to prevail over the practice of polygamy and bigamy as a duty required, encouraged or suffered by religion. Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637; Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 67 S.Ct. 13, 91 L.Ed. 12.
“The reasoning behind this construction of the Constitution is obvious. The determination of proper standards of behaviour must be left to the Congress or to the state legislatures in order that the well being of society as a whole may be safeguarded or promoted. The protection of the individual’s exercise of religious worship afforded by our state Constitution, Article I, section 4, corresponds with that furnished by the federal guaranty as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Our Constitution expressly provides that the free exercise of religion guaranteed ’shall not be so construed as to * * * justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.’”
Justice Shenk then provides a sampling of “supportive” scientific and legal documents, which are nearly frightening, and draws the following conclusion:
“ The foregoing excerpts from scientific articles and legal authorities make it clear that there is not only some but a great deal of evidence to support the legislative determination (last made by our Legislature in 1933) that intermarriage between Negroes and white persons is incompatible with the general welfare and therefore a proper subject for regulation under the police power. There may be some who maintain that there does not exist adequate data on a sufficiently large scale to enable a decision to be made as to the effects of the original admixture of white and Negro blood. However, legislators are not required to wait upon the completion of scientific research to determine whether the underlying facts carry sufficient weight to more fully sustain the regulation.”
Incidentally, most churches stayed out of the interracial marriage debate, leaving the Catholic Church to carry the civil rights issue forward.
Although it has not happened as of yet in California, a lawsuit brought by a church that wishes to perform same-sex marriages that are recognized by the state could easily follow the reasoning found in Perez. This could create a bitter inter-religious fight in the courts between fundamentalist churches and permissive churches, and the courts would be asked to make a ruling on a religious issue. My guess is that fundamentalists considered this troubling prospect and proposed the Constitutional Amendment to take the matter out of the court system altogether. However, in doing so, marriage was denied a full legal treatment, and the reliance on public sentiment to permanently curtail judicial examination of potential rights creates a very troubling precedent which will likely carry over into other contexts. To understand the gravity of this approach, consider that had a ballot initiative been campaigned to amend the California constitution in opposition to the California Supreme Court’s finding in favor of allowing interracial marriage, interracial marriage would likely be unconstitutional in California today.*
While there are certainly reasons why churches should to have the right to solemnize only traditional marriage of a man and a woman within their walls, there is no legal foundation for churches to prevent marriage in other arenas. This could only be obtained via a structural change to the constitution itself.
Churches that are willing to argue that religious liberty does not extend to marriage are also asserting their power to limit the “rights” of other churches to perform same-sex marriages, and could soon see their own liberties limited in other areas through operation of their own logic if the political winds shift.
Legally, not religiously, the institution of marriage is at a crossroads, and there are several ways that the matter could be resolved. First, all marriages could be reduced to nothing more than a civil contract with a separate non-legally recognized spiritual component. Secondly, the state could recognize the legal status of marriages between two consenting adults regardless of gender, and preserve the civil / religious nature of marriage and continue to preserve the broad discretion to marry or not presently enjoyed by churches.
Considering the most recent votes on marriage, I would like to offer a third possibility. Instead of secularism, could it be that religion will prevail over the state, casting a “theocratic” shadow over the nation? In the late 1800s, the church’s power to control marriage was used as the precedent to promote laws governing the other institution of creation, the Sabbath.* Could that happen again? Maybe this is slippery slope reasoning, but considering that religious fundamentalists have been arguing that the secular state will prevail over the church if left unchecked, it is not an unfair argument. Perhaps instead of a single slippery slope, we are at the peak of the roof, facing slopes in both directions.
In a future article I plan to explore the history of marriage further and its legal relationship to religious legislation, but for now, at the least we should recognize the need to discern the issues involved in this debate fully before placing liberty of conscience at risk.
###
*The historical link between regulation of marriage and the legal basis for proposed sabbath legislation will be explored in more detail in a future article. For more on the issue of majoritarian control of fundamental rights, please read the prior essay, Raw Majority Power: Why Checks and Balances Matter
What’s Wrong with Conspiracy Theories?
By Michael Peabody
The other day someone sent me a link to an “Antichrist Decoder” that has been posted online by an otherwise reputable Christian ministry. You can type in anybody’s name and the program will calculate the value of the name in Roman numerals.
After checking my name to make sure that I was not the Antichrist I looked at the other names that people had plugged into the decoder and learned that Barack Obama is not the antichrist, neither is Barack Hussein Obama. Ronald Wilson Reagan’s name doesn’t add up to 666 even if you type in two “v”s to make the W.
People were having fun with the decoder and for the uninitiated it would be at home in a carnival next to the “Love Meter” or “Magic 8 Ball.” Perhaps an “antichrist decoder” made the rounds on the county fair circuit in years gone by, or a 666 Decoder Ring was the cheap plastic treat in the box of Cracker Jacks.
A conspiracy theory hits the same synapses as the Weekly World News or National Enquirerproviding junk food for the mind that masquerades as a nutritious meal. Just this last week while little Falcon Heene was presumably floating above Colorado in a UFO-Shaped balloon, YouTube videos that his dad made about how Hillary Clinton could be a “reptilian shape shifter” spiked in popularity. And each night millions tune in hear George Noory on Coast to Coast AMwhile he discusses tunnels under the pyramids and portals to other dimensions. And every year seekers crowd churches to hear the latest interpretations of Scripture that specify how mysterious political events are aligning to bring the world to an end. The problem with the cheap thrill of side show conspiracy theories is that concern about legitimate issues is eventually eroded as the carnival callers “cry wolf” so often that the real wolves can count on a feast.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “Conspiracy Theory” as “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.”
Christianity as a whole is planted on a conspiracy theory that one day the world will end and that there are forces at work right now among the “principalities and powers” of this world that will effect that change and that rescue is coming from outer space and that you can communicate with tremendous powers simply through the power of thought. We don’t often view it in these terms but that’s how it would sound to a Martian if he happened to walk into a church service.
In reality, some conspiracy theories are true and verifiable, but others are not. It is important to distinguish between verifiable or substantiated truth and error because any error, even if it is meant well, tends to corrupt the entirety of the message. In the religious world, people tend to take “judicial notice” of scripture so speaking in harmony with an established text is generally accepted, but other issues require proven and reliable evidence or they will, of necessity, be questioned. Believing that something bad is afoot if it is not mentioned in scripture with specificity must be backed up with substantial evidence if listeners are to take it seriously.
Conspiracy theories that float around without substantial grounding in truth present several serious drawbacks.
First, conspiracy theories that do not come true affect your credibility.
“A good conspiracy is unprovable. I mean, if you can prove it, it means they screwed up somewhere along the line.” Mel Gibson’s character inConspiracy Theory (1997).
Around the year 2000, the millennial conspiracy nutcases (we call them now) came out and said that the world would end, planes would fall from the sky, and the electrical power grid would crash. Then, following 9/11 George Bush was going to institute marshal law and become dictator for life. Today, the H1N1 vaccine is a mind control drug and amounts to biological warfare.
Is there any truth to these conspiracies? Perhaps there is, but nothing has happened in the first two, and I am predicting that the vaccine will not create a nation of zombies. Still there are people who email me tons of information about FEMA concentration camps, mass production of body bags, and all kinds of fascinating things. I usually read them because it is fun to be afraid but each time it seems less and less likely. There is too much “conspiracy” noise out there to distinguish the truth from the error, and unfounded conspiracies based on nothing more than the eyewitness report of a “friend of a friend of a friend” are not persuasive.
Second, conspiracy theories can distract you from present responsibilities.
“A Conspiracy!” cried the delighted lady, clapping her hands. “Of all things, I do like a Conspiracy! It’s so interesting!” – Lewis Carroll, My Lady, Sylvie and Bruno (1889)
There is an old saying that it is possible to be “so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good.” You can also be so “conspiracy minded” that you are of no earthly good.
When people tell me about conspiracy theories I often ask them whether they have taken the time to learn more about their faith or do good in their communities. They may show me some pamphlets they gave to people to “warn” them about whatever they think is going to happen but most of the time they haven’t done much more.
I do write this from a Christian perspective and I’ve learned over time that we really do have a lot of freedom in the United States and in Canada for the most part to speak freely about religion or politics, and to assemble. There are challenges from time to time which can be addressed but we still have the ability to address them. In a large sense, religious liberty is a supportive ministry that can be called upon when needed but does not necessarily need to be front and center unless there is a specific need for it.
Religious liberty ministry is like a fire extinguisher in a glass case. It must be charged up and ready to go. It needs to have all the resources to handle severe fires, but the sign says, “In case of emergency, break glass.” It can be used to inform people of current events but never to distract from the main mission of the church, which I believe is set forth in the Great Commission.
This segues nicely to the third reason I have a problem with conspiracy theories.
Third, conspiracy theories can become the center of your faith.
“Our cause is a secret within a secret, a secret that only another secret can explain, it is a secret about a secret that is veiled by a secret.” Ja’far as-Sadiq (6th Imam)
A while back there was a group of borderline Seventh-day Adventists who decided to spread the gospel by talking about the antichrist. They put up billboards all over the country, reserved space in major newspapers, and otherwise launched massive media campaigns. Most of the ads appeared to be miles of tiny text punctuated by dire warnings and a picture of the purported antichrist.
This would appear to be evangelism in the negative – in other words, tell people about the bad in the world to teach them what’s good. It’s like former rock stars and drug dealers turned religious who tell stories of their fascinating lives. They had money, power, fame, mansions, cars, planes, and everything else you could ever want in life. But then the stories become far less interesting when they become Christians and now live in their vans traveling the country. I suppose it works for some people so I’m not going to knock it, but it’s usually made me more curious about their past than about what’s happening now.
I’ve met a lot of people who will tell all their friends about conspiracy theories thinking that they are sharing their faith. I met one person who went around giving out copies of Foxe’s Book of Martyrsand would regale listeners with stories about extreme torture. Entertaining? Weirdly so. But effective? Yes, in turning people into atheists.
Leading somebody to an understanding of 666 is not the same as sharing one’s religious faith. It may seem like more fun but it doesn’t do much good in making an argument as to why people should want what you have.
Fourth, conspiracy theories can cause you to create enemies out of people whom you should be befriending and cause you to question the sincere motives of others.
“There will ever be some who take delight in dwelling upon the real or supposed faults and failures of others, and who employ their time in seeing, hearing, or reporting something that will destroy confidence in the person criticised. Few are without visible faults; in most persons careful scrutiny will reveal some defect of character; and upon these defects in others, some professed Christians delight to dwell. The habit strengthens with indulgence, and a love for gossip becomes their ruling passion. They gather together the tid-bits of reports,–all of them, it may be, utterly devoid of truth,–and feast upon the scandal, and share it with others as a rare delicacy.” Ellen White – Review and Herald, August 28, 1883.
Weird stories about aliens, Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, or any other group can draw unreasonable and unnatural lines between people. One person I met is fixated on the idea that there will one day be a holy war in America and is planning to run away into the mountains to hide from it all, but is afraid that he will not be able to escape persecution when it comes because the persecutors will have GPS and heat detectors.
Unfortunately, this person has become a virtual hermit who believes he is living a pious lifestyle when in reality he makes Howard Hughes look normal. If he would put some of his tremendous mental horsepower to work helping people with problems that they are facing today, such as poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, and any other ways, he would make a tremendous impact for good. But instead he has twisted the plot around so much that he views any meaningful interaction with the real world as dangerous. Almost everybody is involved in a conspiracy against him, and he believes that most people in the world are formulating plans to do him wrong. The world has pretty much stayed the same but he has become a paranoid freak.
I’ve met wild eyed conspiracy theorists in many areas of life, not just religion. It is very difficult to reason with a person like this because if you question them, they believe that you are now part of the conspiracy. They think the worst of anybody they disagree with.
Hiding away on a mountain somewhere is not a call to piety. Conspiracy theories may have their place as mile markers but they should not impede forward progress.
In reality, the truth is out there, but you’re not likely to find it in a decoder ring. True appreciation of faith or even religious liberty issues do not thrive in fear or require a crisis to be meaningful. You can help liberty thrive when you care about the world and engage with it and the people who live here. Tell the verifiable, undeniable truth and the facts will speak for themselves.
“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” Micah 6:8
###
Why America should not be declared a “Christian Nation”
What would it mean if the United States were officially declared a “Christian Nation”? How would it affect you in your everyday life? Would you have increased opportunity to practice your faith more freely? Would the government use its power to make moral laws that line up with your Christian beliefs or would it favor the ‘Christian beliefs’ of your neighbors?
Our best example might come from a time when much of Europe was a “Christian Continent.” The Holy Roman Empire lasted from Emperor Otto’s coronation in 962 to 1806 when it was dissolved during the Napoleonic wars. For all intents and purposes it was considered the ultimate “Christian” political system.
The Empire was afraid what would happen if people began to compare the activities of its political and religious leaders with the Bible. There was tremendous power in the idea that a political leader could advance policies, not through debate, but by virtue that “God wants it this way, and if you disagree you are in opposition to God.” To put this in perspective, imagine that President Obama could win the healthcare debate by simply saying that “God wants it this way, and if you disagree you are in opposition to God.”
Around 1419, John Huss began to speak against some of the customs of the Church, and because the Empire and the Church were so closely aligned, they spent a lot of energy trying to silence the “heresy.” The Empire was threatened because if Huss won the debate, he would show that the Church could be challenged and if the Church could be challenged, then it threatened the Empire itself, which based its power on the idea that God considered the Empire to be correct on all issues.
When people heard what Huss was saying, they began to doubt their old idea of a unified corpus Christianum and consider that people did not have to agree on everything when it came to faith. A century later, in 1517, Martin Luther initiated the Reformation in an attempt to bring the Church around to his ideas. People ended up siding with Luther or against him along geographic lines and Germany was split along these lines from which it never fully recovered until the Empire dissolved.
Added to this was the fact that popes and emperors tended to distrust each other, and felt that they had to fight to remain in control of the situation.
Many people believe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the formation of a “state church” such as the Church of England. While there are good reasons to believe that this was intended to be much broader, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Congress would still be free to declare that Christianity is the official religion of the country and that our laws were supposed to mirror God’s law.
Christianity has struggled with issues of power and control since its inception. Throughout Jesus’ ministry, His disciples often asked Jesus, “Who is the greatest among us?”
They probably thought that Jesus would name John or Peter or Mathew and make this honored disciple a Vice President of the Kingdom. But Jesus turned their question upside down.
In Matthew 18 we read His answer. “Jesus called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven” (NIV).
In recent months as I’ve read various calls for America to be declared a Christian nation, I’ve been surprised at some of the language used. Tom Snyder on World Net Daily said that the idea of separation of church and state is promoted by “theophobic atheists, neo-pagan fascists, radical liberals, socialists, Marxists, anti-Christian bigots, sexual perverts, Christophobic politicians and journalists, and other such people who wish to obliterate the European Christian foundation on which America was built.” See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45069
Snyder concludes that, “separation of church and state does not mean separation between politics and religion or politics and the Bible. As Gary DeMar points out, there is a big difference between an ‘ecclesiocracy’ where the church rules society through religious leaders with preachers and priests as the government officials, and a ‘theocracy’ where God rules the outward behavior of all people through the civil government chosen by the people. Thus, the Founding Fathers did indeed establish a Christian theocracy, but they did not establish a Christian ecclesiocracy.”
But who will tell us how God would rule the “outward behavior of all people”? Would some people claim to be closer to God and that they could tell everybody else how to live out their faith in their everyday lives?
History tells us that it would not be a debate between Christians and atheists. If Christianity won predominance over every other religious system in the nation, it would be a debate between Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentacostals, and any other denomination you could name. Then it would be between the liberals and conservatives, and ultimately between conservatives or between liberals, the powerful – not the faithful – would control.
People interpret faith differently, and while most people think they believe the right thing, history tells us what to predict what would happen if one person’s right thing and the other person’s right thing were in disagreement. Anybody who has served on a church board can tell you how much debate goes on about the smallest issues – churches have split over the color of carpet, whether somebody could play a guitar in church, or whether a woman can make an announcement in front. Even the Protestants in Europe during the Reformation went to war and killed each other over whether the Eucharist was really the body and blood of Christ.
If America were declared a Christian nation, would this tendency to fight over the smallest differences in faith change? Would churches that uphold traditional marriage gain power over those who performed same-sex marriages? Would those who view national healthcare as a Godly objective fight with those who found problems with it? Would the liberal churches or conservative churches dominate the landscape?
And what about those who were not Christian? Would they find themselves pressured to convert or face losing their rights to hold office, vote, or even own property?
Looking at history, the only way the idea of a “Christian America” that is envisioned would ever be able to “succeed” is by seeking power, suppressing dissent, and persecuting those who disagreed. It might not follow a particular denomination, but because Christianity itself is so diverse there would need to be a central core of beliefs. There might be a few “true believers” who would carry their message forward without feeling upset by this change, but the majority of the people, including most Christians, would live in constant fear and frustration.
In an age when many Christian conservatives argue that the government cannot properly handle the issue of health care, many of the same people seem to have confidence in the government’s ability to handle matters of faith. For that reason alone, separation of church and state should be a conservative cause. Religion does best when it stands on its own two feet and does not rely on the crutch of government. Just as conservatives argue those who receive a lifetime of government funding cannot handle the open market, they should recognize that once churches depend on government “marketing” they will cease to be as productive.
After a thousand years of religious leadership, the former Holy Roman Empire is now one of the most secular places on the globe. People look at churches as irrelevant antiques. And many government-funded churches in Europe are dying on the vine. This was because religion depended on the government and when the government pulled back, religion folded. If Americans want faith to thrive, it should grow on its own – not be stifled or forced by government. Faith does not need a government handout or increased bureaucratic overhead that would inevitably result. Imagine if churches were run like the DMV!
This is not to say that there aren’t times when churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations can’t partner with government for humanitarian purposes, but rather that the government should stay out of matters of faith and doctrine.
Rather than seeking power in order to turn the United States into a Christian Empire, it would be better for individual Christians and churches to follow Jesus’ words, “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven” (NIV). The best way to grow Christianity is not through achieving power but through caring acts of kindness and mercy. Evangelical Christians should not seek to become a Christian nation, but they can seek to be a nation of Christians who have been attracted to Christ through their faith and freely chosen to follow Him. If Christians must rely on the power of government to increase their impact on the world, they are doing something very wrong.
Declaring that this is a “Christian Nation” would not make America better – it would make America a nation of robots and would misrepresent the freedom that faith can bring. America should be a nation where people can choose their own faith and not have to be afraid that they will be marginalized or at a disadvantage when it comes to how their government treats them. America is a big place, and is definitely big enough for all peaceful people of faith as well as those who choose not to follow any faith. That’s what freedom of religion is all about.