Members of a society’s dominant religion often think it perfectly natural that faith and politics should overlap. Here in America, for example, Christians whip themselves into a frenzy whenever the privileged status of their religion is taken down a notch, such as when the National Day of Prayer was recently ruled unconstitutional. To the long-standing principle of “separation of church and state,” many of them they say pffft! Removing God and His laws from the public sphere inevitably leads to rampant immorality and invites His wrath. This is a Christian nation, by gum!
It’s unfortunate so many are ignorant of the rationale behind the Establishment Clause of our constitution. Efforts to circumscribe or role back Christianity’s encroachment on the public sphere are instead interpreted as a commie-liberal-socialist-nazi-atheist-NWO plot to destroy it.
The site Religion Dispatches today runs the perfect rejoinder to these loons. Not only does it compellingly make the case for separation of church and state, it does so by recalling just why the Founders regarded it as so critically important for the protection of believers themselves:
For the historically minded among us, the reasons for not bringing our spiritual authority into political campaigns are blood red. For nearly 2,000 years our faith fore-fathers were persecuted and oppressed, not always by the irreligious, but more often by competing tribes within Christianity. Clerics would jockey for favor in the kingdoms of men, then use any clout gained to suppress the views of their theological enemies.
Over and again we stamped out those who did not fit into our au courant idea of orthodoxy and we entrenched ourselves into division, using the steel of our ruler’s swords to proclaim our theological certainty. Christians have killed and tortured more of their own than any other group in history, and this was possible solely because of the unholy union of church and state. Pastors gave rulers their blessing, and rulers returned the favor by silencing the pastor’s critics, a fantastic deal for the pastor who courts the powers, but a dangerous and painful reality for those who do not.
Best of all, the article is not authored by one of the usual suspects but by a Christian believer and alumni of Liberty University (RD calls him a “conservative Christian,” a label I cannot confirm), which makes him a tad more difficult to dismiss. My only quibble with the piece is that it could reinforce the point by citing examples of American intra-Christian killing, thus proving how readily “blood red” history can repeat itself even here.
It’s sad to think such an outstanding article from an unimpeachable source will likely have no impact on the views of the Christian theocrats, for in my experience they’ve largely immunized themselves against reason and sound argument. I would not have them be reminded – the hard way – why they tread a dangerous path.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I have heard it said that the US constitution was set up with separation of church and state partly in order to protect the church. Don’t know if that is true or not, but it is in line with your post.
Similar to the argument in your post, it would seem the church is tainted across the board when there is not a separation of church and state, selling of indulgences and the like. It seems like a slam dunk case, where both the church and the individual benefit from the separation. I guess the powerful within the church don’t have as much to gain from that agreement. Sad.
I think you base your arguments on a very narrow margin of Christianity. That’s why I told you elsewhere that you are prone to sweeping generalizations.
I actually don’t dismiss all your arguments – for instance, I agree it is preposterous to blame the atrocities in Eastern Europe on the suppression of the Orthodox church, although I, who grew up there, know very few people there dared to go to church. But think you can refine them, to the benefit of all involved in the conversation. For example, to say that all theists dismiss evolution (as you did on my blog) is incorrect – I don’t dismiss it one bit. So regroup and let’s discuss.
Actually, what I said was “theists have such a hard time accepting [evolution]“, which is far removed from your recollection. I know very well, for example, that Catholics accept most of its tenets, but even still, they don’t accept it in the same way most biologists do.
Fair enough – the clarification (“in the same way most biologists do”) is important … wait – which biologists are the exception?
One you should be familiar with: Ken Miller. Another would be Francis Collins.