by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News
July 27, 2004
More and more often, we're reading and hearing arguments that "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution, or that it's just “a common misinterpretation” of the First Amendment. On talk radio, in letters to the editor and emails in our own in-box, it's no longer unusual or even startling to be told that religion and government should be mingled.
Such arguments aren't just ignorant. As they gain popular acceptance, they're terrifying.
The exact phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution. Neither is "the freedom to say what you want." But the concept is there, and it's what makes America America. It's a huge reason why America has survived and thrived.
* * *
What was September 11, 2001, but people getting fanatical about religion?
In today’s Middle East, Arabs kill Jews, and Jews kill Arabs. All through the centuries of recorded time, Christians have killed the heathens, or owned them. How many examples of religious intolerance do you need? Salem witch trials. The Sudanese civil war (it’s largely Muslims vs. Christians). Sri Lanka (Hindus killing Buddhists). The Crusades (Christians killing infidels). Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. And so on through every age of the past, into the here and now, and most assuredly into the future.
Religion does many people much good, in their hearts. But undoubtedly, repeatedly, all through history, many people are not content to keep their religion in their hearts. They seem to store their excess religion in their guns, in their swords. Whenever, wherever people force their religious beliefs on others, two things happen: People die, and more people die.
Governments, so we’re told, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. But it’s awfully easy and frightfully common to see citizens whipped into an angry frenzy, riled up and ready for war, or ready to encourage and embrace astounding atrocities inflicted on fellow citizens.
For ordering the deaths of half a dozen people, Charles Manson is considered a mass murderer. George W. Bush’s orders have killed more than 50,000, and Bush, of course, is a minor leaguer when it comes to killing. How many men, women, and children were sent to their deaths by Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler? Historians can’t even agree on an approximation, rounded to the nearest few million.
You can argue, quite correctly, that religion and government have accomplished a great deal of good in the world. But nobody can sanely argue that religion and government haven’t each killed many, many millions.
That’s why America has separation of religion and government (church and state).
Fireworks are explosive, and so is gasoline. That’s why you rarely see 4th of July firecracker shops operating out of Exxon stations. It’s a really bad idea to commingle large stockpiles of fireworks and gasoline, and it’s no less stupid to mix religion and government.
The idea is, it shouldn't be the sheriff’s job to decide whether you’ll be arrested for eating pork or drinking coffee or premarital sex. Such matters are between you and your god.
And you know what? That’s always been enough, for any god. No omnipotent being has ever appeared before Congress, Parliament, or any other governing body, demanding that human legislators act as holy stenographers, rewriting selected scripture as the law of the land.
By definition, a god wouldn’t need man-made laws, troops, and guns to get his-her-its way. A god is supposed to be omnipotent -- all-powerful. It’s a song we sang in Sunday School: “God can do anything, anything, anything, God can do anything but fail.”
Only a puny poser phony god would need an act of Congress to accomplish something. A real god wouldn’t need the force of law, and wouldn't need a particular candidate to win a particular office and push a particular bill. No "god" needs a nutball judge to install a two-ton Ten Commandments monument at the courthouse. If a god wanted such things, or wanted anything else, a god would simply do it.
The only god who makes political endorsements, is the god of human ego and human egomaniacs. Any candidate for government office who wants voters to believe he or she has God’s endorsement is a charlatan, a liar, or a lunatic.
The only god who needs politicians’ help is a god made in a charlatan's image, leading the ignorant and the stupid toward the next round of theocracy. People who follow such false gods will sooner or later find themselves part of the shameful, murderous history that reoccurs every time religion commingles with government.
* * *Americans may vaguely remember history lessons about the Pilgrims -- English subjects who fled to America in 1620, to escape the one official church of England, called, ominously, the Church of England.
They wanted freedom to worship as they wished, not as other people ordered them to worship. They wanted their freedom of religion.
And you want your freedom of religion, too. And you should have it.
Well, your next-door neighbor wants his freedom of religion, too. And he should have it, and your neighbor across the street should have it, and everyone you know and everyone you'll never meet should have freedom of religion ... but none of us can have it when any one religion becomes the law.
Yet America’s redneck religious right argues for “Christian law,” as enthusiastically as misguided Muslims demand “Islamic law.”
As a trivial example, many American municipalities ban Sunday sales of beer, because Sunday is “The Lord’s Day.” Of course, America has millions of Jews and Buddhists and atheists and other people for whom Sunday is simply not any lord’s day, but most Americans call themselves Christians, and they just love having their faith written into law.
Less trivially and more emphatically, some of America's Christian fanatics argue against equal rights for women, because obscure scripture tells them women are less than equal. They argue against equal rights for homosexuals, because a favored Old Testament verse says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination."
Other obscure Biblical passages ban eating pork or shellfish, or command death for disobedient children, but few Christians argue for those scriptures to be enacted as law.
Freedom of religion means, you get to choose which of these silly edicts to believe and follow, or disbelieve and ignore. And freedom of religion is exactly what these Christian fanatics oppose.
Using the power of government to force their beliefs on others is the old “Church of England” position. It gives just one religion the power of law, and punishes non-believers for non-believing.
If that’s your argument -- if your religious faith decides your political views -- please have the decency to honestly acknowledge that you’re opposed to freedom of religion. You’re siding with the Church of England, and against the Pilgrims.
The only escape from your religious dogma is the way the Pilgrims escaped: by fleeing tyranny.
We try to politely argue the other point of view. We’re for the freedom of religion fanatics always oppose.
We don't believe anyone should have the right to punish other people simply for having different religious beliefs. Not even you, and not even your religious leaders should have such power.
When a nation is governed by religious law, it’s called theocracy, and it’s an incredibly ugly form of government. People get their hands chopped off for petty theft, their tongues or their heads chopped off for blasphemy. Women are stoned to death for infidelity -- all because it is written in the Koran, or the Bible, or the Torah, or whatever religious faith is augmented by the power to imprison people, by the weapons of war, and by other authorities we commonly call 'government'.
Two of the most obvious and often-taught lessons of human history are: 1.) People sometimes take their belief in a god (any god) to fanatical levels -- and when those people are in charge, other people are in grave danger.
2.) People often take their love of country (any country) to fanatical levels, and when those people are in charge, other people are in grave danger. For god’s sake -- for the sake of any true god -- anyone even semi-cognizant of human history should support the separation, not the commingling, of these two enormous powers -- church and state.
© 2004, by the author.
What do you think?
|
The exact phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution.
Neither is "the freedom to say what you want."
But the concept is there, and it's what makes America America.
|
|
|
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."First Amendment,
U.S. Constitution
Fireworks are explosive, and so is gasoline.
That’s why you rarely see 4th of July firecracker shops operating out of Exxon stations.
It’s a really bad idea to commingle large stockpiles of fireworks and gasoline, and it’s no less stupid to mix religion and government.
|
|
|
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."First Amendment,
U.S. Constitution
Only a puny poser phony god would need an act of Congress to accomplish something.
A real god wouldn’t need the force of law, and wouldn't need a particular candidate to win a particular office and push a particular bill.
No "god" needs a nutball judge to install a two-ton Ten Commandments monument at the courthouse.
If a god wanted such things, or wanted anything else, a god would simply do it.
The only god who makes political endorsements, is the god of human ego and human egomaniacs.
Any candidate for government office who wants voters to believe he or she has God’s endorsement is a charlatan, a liar, or a lunatic.
|
|
|
|
