I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.President Kennedy certainly made valid points during his speech. However, on the whole, Kennedy's speech reveals that he has misinterpreted the meaning of "the wall of separation."
Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists
In 1801, immediately following the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote a letter to their new president. In the letter, they expressed their desire that President Jefferson work to further protect citizens from religious discrimination. In the experience of the Danbury Baptists the "religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen." By writing this letter, the Danbury Baptist Association hoped to encourage President Jefferson, whose past services cast "a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years," to further strengthen the religious liberties of American citizens.
President Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists and in his letter he coined a phrase that has dominated the discussion over the role of religion in government ever since.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. (Emphasis added)
The goal of Jefferson's response was to demonstrate that government should not interfere in the religious decisions or beliefs of private citizens. Citizens should not be excluded from office because of their beliefs. Citizens should not be granted religious liberty at the whim and discretion of a state legislature. No religious group should be given political preference or assistance by the government, because this would involve government in the affairs of local and private religious belief and practice. It is easy to picture the "wall of separation" as a hedge built around religion. This hedge is intended to keep government out. It is not intended to keep religion in.
President Kennedy had it correct on many accounts. He argued that religious organizations should not be funded or shown preferential treatment by the government. However, he faltered when he began to suggest that a person's private religious beliefs, should not govern or decide how they act politically. Religion is not, and cannot be politically neutral. All citizens have religious beliefs and these beliefs dramatically impact their views on politics. By arguing that it breaches the separation of Church and State for a religious leader to discuss politics from the pulpit, not only suppresses religious liberty, but it also suppresses freedom of speech. The wall of separation limits government, it does not limit private expression.
Why Does This History Lesson Matter?
I read a lot of political blogs. When I can I watch debates. I don't watch much, if any, news programs because cable is something that Nathaniel and I are unwilling to pay for. But even without my cable news lifeline, the news articles and blogs that I read are constantly impressing upon me the increasing hostility that religious voters are dealing with. Choosing political candidates that align with your religious beliefs is belittled. Taking political stances against government actions that defy your belief system is met with outright derision and mockery. We are told that religion is a private matter and in order to be a good citizen, we must embrace the belief systems of our fellow citizens. My response is that I have a vote and you have a vote. You vote your beliefs and I'll vote mine. This is a democracy.
However, the issue of religious freedom has taken on a new dimension in recent weeks that is reminiscent of the Danbury Baptists' complaints. Religious organizations are now being compelled to violate their consciences due to government mandates. In rolling out his new health care plan, President Obama has made it mandatory for all employers (except those religious organizations who employ only people with similar beliefs) to provide free contraception to all female employees. This contraception must include methods that are considered abortive. This has huge implications for the Catholic Church, whose nation-wide chain of hospitals and clinics employ people with a wide variety of religious beliefs. For the Catholic Church, all contraception is immoral and the federal government is railroading their religious freedom.
This topic is not easy for me to think through. I have wrestled with different aspects of this debate for months but the issue at stake, mandatory provision of contraception to all female employees, is a gross violation of American's religious liberties and a blatant power grab on the part of the federal government. Let's not be silent. Let's defend our moral convictions. Let's defend the lives of the unborn. Let's be bold in our convictions and not be merely content to let the Catholic Church bear the burden of protest.
Sources and Recommended Reading
Al Mohler- The President, the Pill, and Religious Liberty in Peril
Young, Evangelical, and Catholic- I'm Tired of Religious People Serving the Poor
SBC- Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission- Guidestone: Obama Mandate Violates Religious Liberty
Letter from the Danbury Baptists
Thomas Jefferson's Response to the Danbury Baptists
HHS' News Release
Humanae Vitae
