Separating church, state doesn't preclude religion
The Rev. Paul Viggiano
Posted: Daily Breeze 05/04/2010 08:47:10 PM PDT
Judge Barbara Crabb's declaration last month that the
National Day of Prayer, traditionally celebrated on the second Thursday in May,
is unconstitutional provides yet another example of how the church and state
dialogue resembles a sitcom - "Don't miss the fun when our stars don't
realize they're talking about different subjects!"
People talk past one another. Both sides grow frustrated
because the other guy just doesn't get it. Is separation of church and state
preferable? What's the alternative? What do people mean when they say they
believe in a separation of church and state?
If the separation of church and state means the president
should not wear an Episcopal mitre (Pope's hat) and speak ex cathedra (with
papal authority), I agree.
If the separation of church and state means the Joint Chiefs
of Staff should disregard the recommendation of modern-day prophets to engage
in holy wars, I agree.
If the separation of church and state means the government
should not create a church where senators are the clergy and the Supreme Court
administers the sacraments, preaches sermons and excommunicates sinners, I
agree.
I'm a Christian and a pastor. And I'm an advocate of the
separation of church and state. I can say this because I realize that church is
not synonymous with God.
The Scriptures tell us that the church is an institution
created by God and the state is an institution created by God. But they have
separate roles.
The church shouldn't arrest people and the state shouldn't
baptize people. These institutions should remain separate. But the separation
of church and state is not the same as the separation of God and state.
One need merely stroll the nation's capitol, with all its
granite carvings paying homage to God, or peruse the nation's documents from
the Mayflower Compact to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
to realize that God was never asked to stand at the doorstep of our nation's
civil affairs. Do we think our Founding Fathers (and earlier Pilgrims and
Puritans) had a corporate split-personality disorder while composing the
instruction by which our nation was to be governed? If they believed in
separation of God and state, why so much God talk?
Let's, for a moment, suppose the Founders were victims of
their own religious environment. Maybe they accidentally or inadvertently
included God's name out of mere habit. Maybe they made a mistake that needs to
be rectified. What then is the religion which is to undergird our political
convictions? I can anticipate the steamy response. "No religion!" For
the sake of argument let's change the term. Let's not call it religion, let's
call it a "life and world view."
For many, religion is not merely lighting candles and
chanting mantras. It does not end at quiet times, fasting and gesticulations.
It is a life and world view. It is the means by which people determine what is
right and good and true. It is how people determine how to raise their
children, love their spouse and even vote for a candidate.
Having a life and world view is a universal necessity of
humanity. Everyone has a life and world view that governs their decisions. You
can call it by another name, but it's your religion. It's your bottom line. If
someone asked you to prove it, you couldn't. It's immaterial. It's a
conviction, a faith. Like love, honor, courage and beauty, it's abstract. You
may see its results but you can't see it. Like time, energy, space and mass, it
is a necessary part of your reality but it cannot be observed.
Your life and world view resides in your psyche (Greek for
soul) and you received it. Your parents, your teachers, your friends, your
favorite artist, rock star or comedian have all contributed to your religion.
People comfort themselves by calling it by another name, but it is their
religion. Even a person's conviction to remove Judeo-Christian ethics and
prayers from politics is itself a religious conviction.
I am for the separation of church and state. But the
separation of religion and state - of a life and world view and state, of God
and state - is a logical impossibility. And there is no reason why a life and
world view derived from the Scriptures is less qualified to have a voice in
politics than any other life and world view. Any thinking person realizes they
have a god - not identifying who or what that god may be does not excuse the
reality.
The Rev. Paul Viggiano is pastor of the Branch of Hope
Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Torrance
(e-mail: pastorpaul@integrity.com).
Considering the letters that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others wrote about the Bible, and their involvement in freemasonry, could it really be true that they had orthodox, theonomic views regarding the state? We have often heard the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama quoting scripture to push legislature yet no one is accusing them of being true servants of Christ. The Dec of Ind speaks of the "course of human events" and is not a recognition of God's sovereignty. The Constitution makes itself the "supreme law of the land", forbidding any appeal to anything higher such as the Bible. It also forbids religious oaths of office, which means that the most important aspect of one's character, his relationship with God, must be completely irrelevant to his yielding political power. The first amendment protects the propagation and practice of the worship of any gods in any form. If this was a truly Christian document, aren't these violations of the first commandment and of the laws which tell us to elect only brothers as rulers?
ReplyDelete