|
by James Puffer
The separation of church and state was established in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The amendment ensured no one’s religion or religious beliefs would be prosecuted, and in return, these beliefs would not become involved in our government.
Sadly, over 220 years later, it still seems this separation has not been achieved.
Political
candidates openly support religious policies to gain voters, and issues
like abortion are not even discussed without the input of the church
and religious leaders.
While
it’s understandable religion and government will undoubtedly have some
connected issues, the amount of religious influence on our government
is astounding to say the least.
Stories like the one of Rev. Jay Scott Newman show the more disturbing side of religion’s involvement.
In a
story first reported by CNN, Rev. Newman, a Catholic priest in South
Carolina, refused to provide communion to members of his congregation
who voted for Obama unless they repented for their choice.
“Voting
for a pro-abortion politician…constitutes material cooperation with
intrinsic evil,” Rev. Newman told parishioners in an excerpt taken from
Yahoo! News.
This type of reaction, though rare, is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Rev.
Newman has no right to refuse a religious right because of political
affiliation, regardless of his position as a church leader.
A
person’s political choices are the same as their religious beliefs;
whatever they decide is their choice and they should not be persecuted
for it.
It would
appear church officials cannot stay involved purely in church business
however, as numerous religious organizations and leaders have felt the
need to get involved in politics.
Popular
evangelical Pat Robertson openly prayed for the death and removal of
liberal Supreme Court justices on his show, the “700 Club.”
“Would
it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges
that the time has come?” Robertson told viewers in 2003.
Entire
churches have gotten involved in politics, for better and for worse,
including the Westboro Baptist church of Topeka, Kan.
This
church, better known for its protests of “God Hates F---” at soldiers’
funerals, is an active participant in petitions against gay marriage,
and throws its support behind bills such as Proposition 8, the bill
banning gay marriage in California.
While
Pat Robertson and the Westboro Church are certainly the extreme right
of religious organizations, there are certain group’s who strive for
direct participation in our government.
Politicians use religion as a major tool to gain votes, appealing to the values and morals of Christian voters here in the U.S.
Many
believe religion is in fact the key aspect to getting elected, as an
estimated 76 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian.
“Some
would argue the person least likely to be elected president is an
atheist,” philosophy and religion professor Thomas B. Ellis said.
Ideally,
religion is supposed to be separate from our government, but those who
make this division face nothing but discrimination.
There is
a need for religion in this country; it provides a good set of morals
and values if taught correctly, and gives people support when they need
it.
There is
a place for religion in our country, and that’s in the churches,
synagogues and mosques, not in a courthouse or Congress.
Trackback(0)
 |
Opinion 
TrackBack URI for this entry
Show/Hide comments
The First Amendment states that Congress as a federal body may not establish a federal church. That's one of the reasons the pilgrims left England b/c of the federal church. The First Amendment, however does not prevent an individual US state from establishing a state church and in fact, many states had official churches or religions. Massachusetts and Connecticut both had official state churches after the ratification of the First Amendment. Not until court cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment did the US Supreme Court apply the First Amendment to state churches. The First Amendment was never created to prevent the practice and application of religion by individuals in either private or public life including having a role in politics.
As for Rev. Newman, nothing he did violated the First Amendment - this claim is simply wrong. Did the church violate IRS tax-exempt laws with regards to churches and political parties? Well, that's up for debate and is being challenged by the Alliance Defense Fund across the nation. To believe religion is trumped by politics is to shudder religion in a closet which the First Amendment prohibits. His refusal to offer communion to those who voted for Sen. Obama was not related to their political affiliation as you claim, but because of Sen. Obama's complete support for unrestrained access to abortion and his support of letting children born alive during an abortion to be left to die instead of being medical or comfort care. This may be a newsflash, but the Catholic church is probably the biggest supportor of life issues.
Further, your political choices are not equal to you religious beliefs. If anything, your worldview, including your political viewpoints, should be shaped by your religious convictions. To anyone who truly believes in whatever religion they follow, religious doctrine trumps politics everytime. For too long, evangelicals were told to keep their religion at home and not to participate in government. Had that been the case, slavery would've lasted a lot longer than it did and the Civil Rights movement wouldn't have occured. You have learned that a great deal of those leaders were reverands and preachers and others heavily involved in religion, especially Christianity?
You mention Pat Robertson and the 700 Club and Westboro Baptist as being extreme right relgious organizations. No proper minded Christian and certainly no Baptist would consider either of these two or others as being mainline. Westboro is anything but Christian or Baptist and they are a disgrace. Pat Robertson has definately misplaced a few marbles, but these two hardly describe the current state of religion in politics.
In the current US climate, religion plays a role in fighting for life of the unborn and life of the elderly - something secular humanists have a complete disregard towards. Religion fights for and against capital punishment, but still requires punishment. Secularists wants therapy and release into the general public. Religious people believe in strong traditional families that raise strong children. Secularists and some wrong-minded Christians believe homosexuals can do the same job in that role. Religious people beleive in giving and charity to help the needy and are quite successful at doing so - just look at the Rams Rack. Secularists believe that's the role of government which has produced welfare to help the poor. How has that worked so far? And there are so many other examples, this short format won't let me include.
Mr. Puffer, if you had even the basic understanding of the founding of our nation and the importance of religion during those times, you would be embarrassed at the assertions and completely wrong statements you've made in this article. And to believe religion belongs only in religious buildings is to have no comprehension of the First Amendment. The US is a shing light of religious tolerance and diversity because we don't have to worry about being persecuted in the public square for following any type of religion or no religion at all.
Mr. Puffer while you're in college, take the iniative to educate yourself about our most basic rights and freedoms. You may actually appreciate what you have more than you know.