January 2006 - Article 2

     Can God and politics coexist in peace? Issues such as the pending confirmation of Samuel Alito and the upcoming anniversary of Roe v. Wade make this question as relevant as it always has been. What does the Constitution say, and does it make a difference what it says if the people want something different?

     There are arguments on one side, the secular one, that argue against religiosity, citing separation of church and state. Their feeling is that a particular religious group having clout in any branch of the government will constitute violate the secularism that this country's foundations. In their view, the country was never intended to express the religious views of any one particular group.

     The most prevalent group on the opposite side, at least in the United States, is the evangelical Christians. They argue that this was always a Christian country and that the founding fathers never intended for God to be kicked out of the ruling branches. They believe the more that God is eliminated from the public sphere, the further away we are getting from the intention of Founding Fathers. This, in turn, will erode the responsibility that goes along with freedom. Without God, they argue, freedom becomes anarchy.

     Both of these groups need to coexist peacefully with one another, and both have the right to their points of view. The problem begins when one believes that the other is antagonistic to their existence. Secularists believe that evangelicals are trying to force religion down their throats via the law. Evangelicals believe that secularists want to eradicate them as well. The recent controversy over what to call Christmas was a case in point. Should we put the Christ back in Christmas, even on the Capitol lawn, or should we all adopt Sir Richard Branson's nearly unpronounceable holiday moniker to encapsulate the holiday spirit for all? Both groups were on the defensive from the other.

     It certainly makes sense that secularists would feel threatened with what they perceive to be a religious agenda. If a person does not believe in God, or would rather keep God to themselves privately, the idea of someone basing laws on some religious premise might seem appalling. If the Ten Commandments are codified, does that mean religious practice is mandated by law? Can someone conscientiously refuse to say the Pledge of the Allegiance without fear of legal reprisal? How do you mandate religion without violating someone's freedom of expression?

     On the other side, evangelicals also have reasons to be concerned. By outlawing religious displays, it seems as though they are being told they are not permitted to exist in a public sphere. This would seem like a violation of freedom of expression on their part, especially when the opposition does not come from the majority of local residents but outside pressure groups such as the ACLU. And it may be part of one's religion to petition one's legislators with interests compatible with one's religious views. More liberal Christians do this all the time with anti-war protests or environmental concerns.

     In a similar vein, conservative legislative concerns commonly include anti-abortion and anti-gay rights views. It could be argued that these concerns impinge on the rights of others, by restricting access to abortion and sending gays back to the private sphere. This is certainly alarming to those who would be affected by such legislation. But does this mean that the conservative argument shouldn't be heard? Should people who hold such views not petition lawmakers to heed their voices because of "separation of church and state" issues? Maybe bringing God to the legislative table is too explosive, given this context. But then, doesn't this impinge upon the expression of many who want him there?

     One major argument that the conservatives have is that the words "separation of church and state" do not literally appear in the Constitution. They are just words rendered from a Supreme Court decision. And obviously, God is well represented on federal buildings as well as on the legal tender of the country. Secularists, they say, don't have a moral problem using money because of that.

     However, the first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This was specifically put in place to prevent state churches such as the Church of England from holding sway over legislative matters. Those who have a moral concern, believing it to be destructive for the fabric of the country, certainly can air their grievance and elect people who feel as they do. It also would not be problematic, constitutionally, if every person in the federal government was an evangelical Christian, as long as they were democratically elected and did not prevent the free speech of other viewpoints. "No religious test" extends both ways. But this also means that specific churches cannot constitutionally hijack the workings of the federal government. To some, the Christian Coalition is doing just that, and they feel this needs to be stopped.

     This back and forth between the two groups will go on, probably for as long as the republic of the United States of America exists. The groups in the media may seem like the polar extremes, but they do represent a decent portion of the population and have the right to express themselves peacefully. Many came to this country for such religious freedom. The fact that people can air grievances without landing in prison like Saudi Arabia is a testament that this process works. It is proof that the mechanics of the constitution were forward thinking enough for this peaceful inclusion to allow this debate to even exist.