SERMONS 

Faith in Action: Religion and Politics in 2004

As a young boy, I was taught, as so many of you were probably taught also, that in polite conversation it was best to avoid two topics of conversation -- religion and politics. Well, that’s one more of those lessons I never really learned, so forget it. This is the place to talk about faith, and in 2004, this is the time to talk about politics. In this election cycle, I believe, religious issues will play a larger role than we have seen in many years.

Of course, such issues are nothing new. Recurrent issues include the legality of abortion, the morality of capital punishment, and the teaching of evolution and creationism in our public schools. Recently we've even had a debate about the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. But this year is special, so between now and November, I have no doubt that you will hear a great deal more about the following issues:

• "Partial Birth Abortion." Bush signed the law to ban this practice, but cases are already making their way through the courts to question its constitutionality.
• Politicians being coerced to act politically on church doctrine – In 1960, when John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic to run for the Presidency, opponents feared that his religion would influence his political decisions. Now, Roman Catholic bishops are threatening to refuse communion to John Kerry and other Catholics who privately oppose abortion but publicly support laws that make abortion available. My, how times have changed.
• Stem Cell Research: It’s been limited by President Bush largely because many believe that the use of embryonic stem cells involves something akin to abortion. During the Democratic convention this week, Ron Reagan, son of the former Republican president, made an impassioned plea to the American people. We must pursue this research, he argued, despite the religious objections of some, for it offers great promise in our struggle to cure a wide variety diseases.
• Gay Marriage -- Some in the senate insisted on having a vote for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, even though everyone knew they would not have the votes to pass it. Why? Clearly they believe this is an issue they can use -- they believe that the American people oppose gay marriage and will be swayed to vote against those who would not act to prohibit it.
• Church based Electioneering: Churches can talk about moral issues, but they cannot legally endorse candidates. “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has already filed one complaint with the IRS against a Boston church for introducing John Kerry to the pulpit with a public endorsement as they have against Jerry Falwell for using his tax exempt organization to endorse George W Bush and encourage contributions to a PAC. “ (from an Americans United Press Release)
• Faith-Based Initiatives: President Bush's program would funnel government money into the hands of church programs that aid the poor and others. Those opposed see it as a violation of church-state separation; those supporting it believe denying such funds is, in effect anti-religious.

A few weeks ago, while exercising my thumb with the remote control, I landed on the 700 Club, a Christian program hosted by Pat Robertson. Robertson firmly believes that America is a Christian country. He even ran for president in 1988. So for a few minutes, I watched.

First, Robertson addressed the Gay Marriage issue. He lamented the many marriages performed recently in San Francisco and in Massachusetts, and he urged viewers to write their senators and congressional representatives, asking them to stand up for the Defense of Marriage Act, to support another law that would prevent the courts from reviewing any laws that banned gay marriage, and to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. This is imperative, according to Robertson, to defend the sacred institution of marriage, to prevent the further destruction of morality in America, and to keep America worthy in the eyes of God.

Then Robertson turned to one of his reporters for the “News Update.” The opening story on this day focused on the persecution of Christian missionaries, particularly in Islamic nations that prohibit the spreading of Christianity and would punish and imprison those who owned Bibles or spread the gospel of Jesus.

As I exercised my thumb once more to change the station, I shook my head in disbelief. Do these people not realize that they directly contradict themselves? First, as their version of Christianity opposes gay marriage, they will support new laws -- and even a change in the constitutional role of the courts -- to make sure that their government outlaws it. In effect, this would deny the freedom of religion for other churches that choose to perform gay marriage. At the same time, they speak as proponents of religious liberty when Christians are persecuted under governments that similarly privilege a different system of faith.

Oh, yes, it’s time that we talked seriously about the relationship between politics and religion, and about the American idea of “separation of church and state.” So today, I want to consider three questions crucial to our understanding of the relationship between religion and politics in America:

• Is America a “Christian Country”?
• Is there, or should there be, a “wall of separation between church and state”?
• Should people, in their political actions, be guided or influenced by their religious beliefs and values?

Is America a Christian Country?

Well, that depends on what you mean by “A Christian Country.” By some definitions yes, by others, no.

If by a “Christian Country” we mean a country in which most of the people are Christians, then the United States of America certainly is a Christian Country. Up to 85% of Americans identify themselves as Christians of one sort or another. (figures from www.religioustolerance.org) And most studies conclude that, compared to other nations, we are a very religious country with many people quite active in their observance.

But those who insist that we’re a Christian Country clearly mean something other than population numbers. Pat Robertson won’t be satisfied with a head count. He wants the government to endorse Christianity with specific language stating that our government rules by God’s grace, with Christian prayer led in public schools, and with laws that enforce what he sees as Christian ethics and values. Such a government would establish Christianity as the official religion of the country, just as some currently argue that the USA should establish English as our official language.

Now we’re talking about what is called an establishment of religion or an “established church.” Under an established church, the government specifically endorses a particular church, supporting its doctrine and practice, and providing advantages for its members and disadvantages for others. All citizens must pay taxes or assessments to support the church, whether they belong or not, and those who are not members of the established church are prohibited from holding office.

The founders of our country knew about “established churches.” Many of them came to America to get away from one, the Church of England. Puritans, Catholics, Quakers, and others left England in search of religious freedom, the right to pursue their own religious beliefs without suffering persecution or discrimination. Many of them came to believe that true religious freedom was impossible when governments established churches.

If a Christian Country is one with an official or an established Christian Church, then America is not a Christian Country. There is no established church in America because the First Amendment to our constitution specifically prohibits this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

There are two parts to this simple sentence: The first, known as the “establishment clause,” prohibits the government from having any established church. The second, known as the “free exercise clause,” guarantees freedom of religion to each individual. Thus the First Amendment guarantees that we are free to worship and believe as we choose, or not, and that we are free from any coercion, advantage or disadvantage based on that free choice.

Still, some will insist that even without an established Christian church, America is, and always has been a Christian Nation. They point out that most of our founding fathers were Christians (quite true) and they claim that our founding Documents reveal the Christian basis of our nation. They argue that the founders intended this to be a Christian Nation, despite what they wrote in the constitution.

So, what was the intent of our founding Fathers?

Today, many on the right insist that “separation of church and state” is a misinterpretation of both history and of the constitution. Our local radio talk show guru, Phil Valentine, argues that the words “wall of separation between church and state” do not appear anywhere in our constitution (this is true) and that the concept is totally foreign to what the founders had in mind (quite demonstrably false.) Recently, a self-proclaimed historian named David Barton, who produces “Christian Nation” books and videos – and also is a deputy chairman of the Republican Party in Texas -- has been traveling the country to explain the role of Christianity in our country’s development, intending to prove that separation of church and state is a myth. Mainstream historians have pointed out his many errors, but he continues to travel and speak to supportive crowds as he urges them to vote Republican, for it’s the only way to save and preserve America’s Christian Heritage.

They will often point to the phrase “In God We Trust” on our money, and as our official national motto, and to the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance as evidence that America is and has always been a specifically Christian Nation. But honestly, these folks are either ignorant of history or they’re deliberately rewriting it. “In God We Trust” did not appear on any coins until 1864, at the time of the Civil War. And, it was not required on all money until as late as 1955. The Pledge of Allegiance was not even written until 1892, and, although written by a Baptist minister, the original version never included the phrase “under God.” That was not added until 1954, around the same time that Congress established “In God We Trust,” as the country’s official motto – all in response to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s concern that America must differentiate itself from those “godless communists.”

On one point regarding our forefathers, all will agree. They were very concerned over religious freedom. The Puritans, like many others, came here to escape persecution from the established church. And so they set up their own state in Massachusetts, but then they established their own church and persecuted those who did not conform to Puritan belief. Apparently they were not so concerned with the free thought of others. Indeed a number of the colonies that formed the original union had established churches – Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Virginia, the Carolinas, and some of these established churches continued even after the US Constitution was ratified. The established church in Massachusetts was the last to fall, in 1833.

Our earliest American fighter for true religious freedom was Roger Williams, who left Massachusetts because of its established church. In 1636 Williams led in establishing in Providence, now Rhode Island, as the first colony to specifically protect freedom of conscience. A minister himself, Williams was determined that government should do nothing to influence or limit the freedom to think and to worship. Looking at the Ten Commandments, Williams saw that they fell into two different categories. First are those which govern how individuals relate to God. Williams insisted that these have nothing to do with government and that government should have nothing to do with them. The other commandments govern how men relate to their fellow men. These "he considered not only religious laws but also laws of nature, the law moral and civil, applicable to all regardless of faith and constituting the basis for a public morality." (The American Creed: A Spiritual and Patriotic Primer, (2002), by Forrest Church, page 16) For Williams, then, the business of government need not be based on religion and should in no way meddle with religion.

Our founding fathers were clearly concerned about the role of religion in our government and about the possibility of an established church. The debate went on in many colonies, and in the Constitutional Convention. Some, like John Adams, argued in Massachusetts to maintain the church establishment. So it’s not hard to find among the founders, some who argued in favor of an explicitly Christian Nation.

But others insisted that any establishment of religion would deny the very freedom of religious practice and expression that they and their ancestors had sought in America. – and this was the faction that eventually ruled the day.

Thomas Jefferson was a key figure who argued for years against establishment churches in the colonies, especially in his home state of Virginia. Well known as the author of the “Declaration of Independence,” Jefferson also wrote the “Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom” which ended the established church in that colony. Later, as president, Jefferson even refused to name holidays based on religion, for he believed this would violate the religious freedom.

Inspired by Jefferson, James Madison, who is often called the “Father of the Constitution,” successfully persuaded the convention against joining religion and government. Indeed, some colonies were so fearful of an established church that they refused to ratify the constitution until the Bill of Rights had been added, including the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom.

Jefferson also authored the well-known phrase “a wall of separation between the church and state.” Although it does not appear in the constitution, it has been taken throughout history as an appropriate guide for interpreting the first amendment.

It’s interesting to note the context in which these words appear. In October of 1801, after he was elected President, Jefferson received a letter from the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association. They wrote to congratulate Jefferson, to express appreciation for his strong stand for religious liberty and against established churches, and to enlist whatever aid they could from the new president to oppose the established church in Connecticut under which they suffered taxation without representation, indignity and limited rights. Referring to the First Amendment of the Constitution, Jefferson responded:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (see The Separation of Church and State: Writings on a Fundamental Freedom by America’s Founders, (2004), edited by Forrest Church, page 130.)

Clearly Jefferson believed in this “wall of separation,” and he believed that his understanding was shared by the leaders and the people who actually adopted it as our constitution.

Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, often cited as evidence of the Christian emphasis among our founders, does refer to a “Creator” and to “Nature’s God,” but never in a way that specifies a Christian God.

The Constitution itself, on the other hand, never mentions God or Christianity. Given the times in which it was written, the beliefs of the men who wrote it, and the involved democratic process through which it was debated, disseminated and finally ratified over a number of years, I think it’s remarkable that the document is so deliberately secular, so clearly intended to separate this government from religion.

The authority to govern, it insists in the preamble, comes from the people themselves, from the “consent of the governed.” This contrasts distinctly with European governments of the time, many of which claimed authority from God Himself. The Constitution refers to religion only twice, in the First Amendment and once again where it prohibits any religious requirement for holding public office. (Another attempt to assure that this element of established churches shall not be part of America.)

Let me share one more interesting quote, this one signed by Washington himself. It’s from an official document – a treaty to protect American merchants from the Barbary pirates -- signed in Tripoli in 1796 and then ratified by the United States Senate in 1797. Article 11 of the treaty reads:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion – as it has in itself no character of enmity neither against the law, religion, or tranquility of the Musselmen [Muslims] – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (see The Separation of Church and State: Writings on a Fundamental Freedom by America’s Founders, edited by Forrest Church, (2004) page 123.)

If we judge the intent of the Founding Fathers then, I think we must conclude that they were Christians, often very religious men, but that they very deliberately established a government that was secular, that was not a “Christian Nation, and that they did so, according to their belief that this was the very best way to support religion and to protect religious freedom.

Should there be a “wall of separation between church and state”?

Those who oppose church state separation today will tell you that it limits religious freedom and is especially hostile to Christians. They would lead you to think that those who would separate religion and government are liberals and atheists, the opponents of religion, perhaps even the enemies of God.

But, when you read the arguments written by Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others of their time, those who actually established this principle in our constitution, you find just the opposite. They sought to defend and protect religion, writing as religious men and in religious terms. For them, the freedom to worship was one of those natural rights, those God-given natural rights, that are “inalienable.” Thus it was for the benefit of religion, for the sake of religion, that government must keep hands off, for any endorsement of one religion or one sect is inevitably to the disadvantage of others. Only by separating government from religion, in other words, can true religious freedom and the absolute neutrality of the government be preserved.

Here in the Unitarian Universalist Church, we should find this very congenial. We welcome a wide range of religious beliefs not only in our country, but even here, within our own congregation, and we find that this diversity, although sometimes challenging, is most often valuable, encouraging, and enlightening.

Of course, the wall of separation was not perfectly cast and implemented in 1789. As I’ve said, there were still established churches in some states. Not long ago Bible study was common in our public schools, while Christian prayers were recited in schools and in public meetings of governmental organizations. In the 20th Century, however, the Supreme Court has repeatedly banned such practices because they violate the “establishment” clause of the first amendment. For those who support the separation of church and state, this represents progress—as the country moves slowly closer to the ideals stated in the constitution – just as American history moved progressively toward the full realization of the belief stated in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.”

I, for one, agree with them -- with Jefferson, Madison, Washington and Franklin. Our separation of church and state has been a good thing. We have embraced religious freedom and offered it to all our citizens, and we have benefited immeasurably from the richness and diversity it fosters. And we have set the standard for the world, as other countries, establishing their own constitutional governments have often looked to ours and followed our lead.

Should people, in their political actions, be guided or influenced by their religious beliefs and values? Should people separate their religion from their politics?

When I listen to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell seeking to outlaw abortion or gay marriage, when they argue that government should support church activities and fund private Christian schools, I think that they have no business trying to impose their religion on the rest of us. They should keep their religion to themselves.

On the other hand, I’m not nearly so annoyed by those who make religious arguments against capital punishment or against war. It seems perfectly natural that my own beliefs and values are basic to my politics. Indeed, without the guidance of my faith, my beliefs and my values, I would have no basis for political action at all.

Separation of church and state is a principle of government, not a personal ethic. It can guide the relationship between government and religion, but not how individuals may act out of their religious beliefs with respect to government.

Political action involves taking a stand, acting to bring about what you believe to be right, and just, and fair. Beyond a belief in God, religion also involves an ethic, urges us to act on our beliefs and to take a stand.

Some may respect the separation of church and state while others reject it. But can anyone truly live out their religious beliefs and separate those beliefs from their political action? No. As Unitarian Universalists we regularly insist that social actions are an essential part of living our beliefs. In this, we are no different from Robertson and Falwell. Indeed, although we so often oppose their positions, we are acting similarly. We would all agree that people should act politically – through voting, and through individual and collective action – to make this world better.

Our founding fathers believed that the best policies and practices would emerge from the free market of ideas, with no restrictions. In other words, they believed in the democratic process.

In this political season, I urge you all to take part in that process, to live out your faith and your beliefs, and to use your vote and your personal activism to make this a better America. Just remember to respect your opponents, for they are doing the same.