The separation of
church and state is a complex issue that has been debated since the founding of
this country. The importance of this issue to the Framers was addressed with
the very first amendment of the United States Constitution. “The First
Amendment to the Constitution begins, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’”
(O’Connor, Sabato and Yanus, 2011, p. 154). This amendment is the cornerstone
in the debate over the separation of church and state. Nowadays, with the
rulings and interpretations of the Supreme Court over the centuries, it is
reasonable to accept that there should no longer be separation between church
and state. I will present the reasoning for this by: 1) evaluating the
arguments for proponents of separation of church and state; 2) clarifying
historical and judicial decisions that counter the idea of the separation of
church and state; 3) providing some of the governmental benefits to the integration
of church and state; and, 4) analyzing the moral benefits of opposing
separation of church and state.
In issue 16 of Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political
Issues (2012), United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
supports the notion of separation of church and state. Justice Stevens
specifically writes about the case in 2005 regarding a monument at the Texas’
State Capitol that displayed the Ten Commandments. In his argument, he mentions
his dismay because, “…This State endorses the divine code of the ‘Judeo-Christian’
God” (Stevens in McKenna and Feingold, 2012, p. 274). He argues that this
display can be offensive to those that are not aligned with the Judeo-Christian
God. The flaw in his logic is that it would be virtually impossible to
correctly represent all those of every religion with monuments on the grounds
of the Texas’ State Capitol. Christianity and those that believe in the Ten
Commandments still dominate our country, so it is reasonable to allow the voice
of the majority to be present on the grounds of the capitol in Texas. Relating
to the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the display of this religious
monument, Justice Stevens writes, “This makes a mockery of the constitutional
ideal that government must remain neutral between religion and irreligion” (Stevens
in McKenna and Feingold, 2012, p. 282). This is a silly statement in that
religion has been involved in government since the foundation of our country;
on our money, in our courts, and in the moral guidance of our laws.
This leads us to the
argument that opposes the separation of church and state. Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia writes about the case of McCreary County, Kentucky v. American
Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and finds that the conclusion of the court to
not allow a display of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky to be wrong.
Interestingly enough, this decision occurred on the same day as the decision to
allow the display in Texas. The government absolutely does and has over the
centuries allowed religion to be part of government. As mentioned previously, it
is even on our currency (“In God We Trust”), in our court rooms (swearing on a
bible), and in our legislature (opening meetings with a prayer). Prominent
historical figures like our Founding Fathers have stressed the involvement of
religion in our government and society. “James Madison, in his first inaugural
address, likewise placed his confidence ‘in the guardianship and guidance of
that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose
blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to
whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our
fervent supplications and best hopes for the future’” (Scalia in McKenna and
Feingold, 2012, p. 284). Again, religion has been and still is an integral part
of our government.
To further this
idea, it is important to understand that accepting church as a part of state
means that one has to accept the possible eventualities of this. This very well
could lead to no separation between church and state and this means that church
is state. Separation means they are two different entities, so without
separation, they are one in the same. As such, by accepting the involvement of
church with state, the conclusion is that the state ought to be run like a
church. This is a good, moral conclusion to make. The reason for this is that by
integrating church into state, we can have the confidence that God would not
lead us astray. After all, it is believed by the majority of people in the
United States that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. This simplifies
government greatly. If a church-like hierarchical set up of government existed,
this means that decisive power would be granted to the head of our nation. In
other words, a religious leader ought to be elected as the definitive leader of
the United States and this leader ought to be given the right, the divine
right, to make all decisions and personally appoint not only his own successor,
but any representative he may choose in helping make decisions. This is sound
logic as those of religious faith generally believe that religious leaders are
chosen by God and, according to a recent poll by Public Policy Polling (2011),
God only has a disapproval rating of 9%*. This is much better than any elected
official has which means that the American people would be in general satisfied
with the way that God would run the country (via a religious leader).
With a religious
authority being the decision maker for the country, our whole system becomes
phenomenally simple. For instance, our court system gets to do away with due
process and simply have one religious appointee or even the highest religious
authority quickly make a decision. No one would have to worry about jury duty
anymore. The healthcare debate has been an issue for quite a long time, and
with a direct representative of God commanding that we pray for our health and
happiness, we can completely eliminate all of healthcare and all the
bureaucracy that goes along with it. If people die from disease, then obviously
this is what God wanted of them. The huge financial burden of FEMA would be
gone because a natural disaster only happens because God wants it to happen.
Relief to those caught in a natural disaster would be as sacrilegious wishing
that Noah saved all those condemned by God.
There are also great
moral implications to this oneness between church and state. Religion is oft
times considered the root of morality. Ethical and moral decisions can be made
quickly and efficiently as a religion-based country. The bible has great
teachings that can guide a religious ruler in all moral conundrums (besides
having a direct line to God). Long debated issues such as abortion, cloning,
stem-cell research, and gay marriage would not exist. Our precious time and
resources can be used to further develop more important undertakings like
building more churches and creating more public religious displays. Beyond
this, we have a moral obligation to our children and as such a moral obligation
to the world in which we live. By having a nation that is run by a single
religious leader, we are able to do away with such things like scientific
progression and general health. This means an increase in infant mortality and
a decrease in average life span. The population would not be quite so out of control
and the resources would not be used up quite so quickly. This means that we
leave something for our progeny (those that survive, anyway).
The debate about
separation of church and state is interesting in that we, as a country, never
have truly made up our mind about this topic. To this day, we have Justices in
the Supreme Court arguing and being divided on this issue. To accept
integration of church and state, however, is to accept the notion of church and
state being one in the same. By accepting the consequences of this, we allow
ourselves to be run by religious authority which is supposedly guided by the
hand of God. This means that we reject many of our current political principles
and revert back to a time that religious authority made all decisions (aka
medieval times).
*God has an approval
rating of 52%.
In case it is not
apparent, the point of this paper is to present a “slippery slope” argument by
detailing what the eventual outcome could be if people are willing to allow
integration of church and state. With this extension of logic, perhaps some
degree of skepticism ought to be given to the heavy involvement of church with
state. The realization that church really is very integrated into state matters
also ought to raise a few eyebrows as to the possible eventualities of this and
should be alarming to those of us who want more of a voice and not less of one.
References:
1)
McKenna, G., Feingold S. (2012). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political
Issues, 17th Ed. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
2)
O’Connor, K., Yanus, A.B., Sabato, L.J. (2011). American Government: Roots and Reform, 2011
Ed. Glenview, IL: Pearson Education, Inc.
3)
Jensen, T. (July 21, 2011). Public Policy
Polling. Americans’ Perception of
Congress Improves, But Still Poor. Retrieved February 1, 2012 from http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_721.pdf
