If church and state don’t mix, where do we go from here?
Looking back over our country’s history, our political debate centers on statesâ€™ rights and on the role of the church in our government. I see that we have been struggling with these two issues for a very long time. Both statesâ€™ rights and the role of the religion in government have been around since Jefferson, Adams and Madison were shaping our country back in the 1770s, and we fought a Civil War over statesâ€™ rights in the 1860s.
Judging from our current public debate we have come no closer to solving either the role of state or the role of the church than when the United States was very young. We have been arguing and fighting for so long that we donâ€™t even know what weâ€™re arguing about any moreâ€”and if we have forgotten what weâ€™re arguing about â€” then we have no hope of ever resolving our disagreements over these complex and polarizing issues.
Our society needs to understand that we are really arguing about the type of society we want to create. Americaâ€™s stated purpose, to create liberty and justice for all, means that we must return to the principles of the Constitution of the United States as we go about creating this new society.
The Far Right and the Tea Party have already said that we must return to the Constitution, but they also say that the federal government is nothing more than a tyrannical entity whose power and size must be severely limited. To reduce the size and power of the federal government,
Republicans argue that certain governmental responsibilities should be placed under the purview of state governments. For the Republicans, policy matters surrounding healthcare, abortion, birth control, gay marriage and gun control should be placed under the control of state governments because the federal government cannot be trusted to guard citizensâ€™ best interests. This argument is both nonsense and contrary to the very substance of the US Constitution.
To better understand the Constitution we can begin by examining the Preamble.
â€śWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.â€ť
The Preamble sets up the overarching principles for why the United States was established. A Preamble which proposes ideas such as â€śdomestic Tranquilityâ€ť and â€śgeneral Welfareâ€ť is not a tyrannical Preamble. Rather it is a radical new idea for a governmentâ€”one not based on power and control but on support and access.
The Constitution then contains Articles, which delineate the structure and method of electing officials and paying for the federal government. In accordance with the Preamble, the U.S. Constitutionâ€™s federal government is a rather benign entity that has the additional responsibility to tax citizens and to protect them from invading forces.
It is the Bill of Rights which sets up the major responsibilities of the federal governmentâ€”that of ensuring that citizens will have human rights and equal access to public institutions under the law. The First Ten Amendments, which make up the Bill of Rights are all about human rights. The significance of this cannot be overstated. In fact, it could be possible that we are only now realizing what an incredible document we have as the foundation for our union of states. It could be that we have been arguing over statesâ€™ right since our inception because we could not conceive of a government whose sole responsibility was to ensure that each citizen was protected from egregious powers typical of other federal governments.
Because the federal government has primary responsibility for ensuring human rights, state governments cannot have this responsibility. Standards of access to healthcare (including birth control and abortion), standards of access to civil marriage, standards of access to guns and other arms and standards of access to public education are all matters which are under the purview of the federal government. It cannot be otherwise. We no longer need to argue about this issue. If Republicans want to make a smaller federal government by removing responsibilities and giving them to state governments, then they may do soâ€”as long as what they are trying to remove has nothing to do with human rights.
It should come as no surprise that the Republican Party is comprised of members of the orthodox, fundamental Christian community. Christianity has had a â€śspecialâ€ť relationship with federal governments since the year 300 CE. No matter where they have gone, Christians have been partnered with powerful governments, from Rome to England. The fact that orthodox, fundamental religious movements do not feel comfortable with the structure of the federal government as outlined in the U.S. Constitution should be a cause for celebration, not concern.
If we are making religious institutions uncomfortable, then we are doing something right because in this country the First Amendment gives the right of religious freedom to the individual and not to the religious power structure bent on ensuring control. Where we have gone astray from the radical First Amendment, we must return. We no longer need to argue about whether or not states should have the right to limit individual liberty. Instead, we can begin to discuss how we will go about creating a society in which each individual has the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. These are our inalienable rights. By working together we can create the society we want. Where all have the abilityâ€”everyone will benefit.