Being a beautiful Sunday down here on the border, lets take a look at religion and the Constitution. To say that religion is a big topic of interest to a lot of people in the United States today is a bit of an understatement. It would, however, be incorrect to say that because of the great deal of attention religion and government is getting today, it is a more important topic now than ever before. On the contrary, religion and government has been a matter of great importance and concern to many for centuries. Today, some headlines highlight some of the issues that surround us: The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is removed from office for refusing to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from his court house building. A California atheist sues to remove the words under God from the Pledge of Allegiance and loses; then wins on appeal; then loses in the Supreme Court. President George W. Bush is criticized for his idea of the Faith-Based Initiative, where faith-based organizations could get federal funds where previously they had been barred. Public school bus drivers are required to remove holiday decorations from their buses after complaints of offended parents. These stories, some national, some local, all have one thing in common — the relationship between religion and government. It is a sticky wicket. We are a nation of many religious faiths, and many of us work for a government in some capacity. Is there any way that religion, and the religiousness of people, can be separated from government and the role of people in government? Can religion and government co-exist without crossing over each others boundaries? What are those boundaries? What exactly is the separation of church and state? These are some of the questions that this opinion piece will address. Likely, this will not change any ones mind on the subject — it is a highly personal one. My goal is not to change minds, but to explain what is in the Constitution, what the Supreme Court has said about the topic over time, and how the topic is being seen today. Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause: N0 religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. This statement is simple and straight-forward, and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal. The clause simply means that no public position can be required to be held by any one of any religious denomination. It would be unconstitutional for there to be a requirement that the President by Lutheran, or even for the mayor of a small town to be Christian. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional for a law to forbid a Jew or Muslim from holding any office in any governmental jurisdiction in the United States. (This having been said, it should be noted that several state constitutions do have a religious test — specifically, they deny office to anyone unwilling to acknowledge God or a Supreme Being.) In the debates of the Constitutional Convention, religion did not get a lot of sound bites. It should be noted that without exception, the Framers were Christians and believe in a single god. This deity is the same God of Judeo-Christian tradition. At the time there were no Jews or Muslims, no Hindus or atheists, and only two Roman Catholics. There were members of more than a half-dozen sects of the Protestant side of Christianity, though. Disagreements about style and method of worship between them were nearly as vast and incongruous as any seen today between, say, Jews and Muslims, such that the Framers wanted to ensure that no one sect could ever seize control of a government and start a theocracy.(Muslims are being a bit of a pill now) James Madison, when speaking of the method and manner of the election of the members of the Congress, noted that even Religion itself may become a motive to persecution and oppression, telegraphing his own desire for no religious test for government service. He had been a prime mover in the efforts of some Virginia lawmakers to ensure that no preference be given to any religion in that state, and that a proposed tax to aid religious efforts be defeated. Madison and one of the Pinkney cousins moved, in the waning days of the Convention, that the Congress be permitted the power to establish a university, with the express stipulation that no preferences or distinctions should be allowed on account of Religion. The motion was turned down on a six to four vote, but it was another illustration of his desire to extend no preference to any religious sect. There is one other direct bow to religion in the original Constitution, and it is a bit obtuse. The Presidential Oath of Office is codified in the Constitution in this way: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Again, the reference might be obtuse, but it is the inclusion of language in the oath that allows an incoming President to swear or affirm the oath. This alternate text has been described both as a way of accommodating those religious persons for whom swearing was forbidden, and as a way for the unreligious to take the oath with the same force of personal responsibility that swearing would have for a religious person. Either way, the alternate text attempts to make the oath all-inclusive and religion-neutral. Finally, the Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven. Some have argued that the use of the term Lord in this way is indicative of something, but it is indicative of nothing more than a standard way of referring to years in that time period.
Posted on: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:25:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015