Monday, August 01, 2016

The Interface of Persons of Faith and Politics

I whole-heartedly embrace the Constitutional stance on the separation of Church and State. I also believe, however, that the concept may mean something other than how we have applied it to the interface of faith and politics.

As I understand it, the separation of Church and State in the United States Constitution guarantees that there shall be no establishment of an official United States religion, and that no person should be coerced by the government into any particular religion's practices. The American system was founded on religious liberties. Coming, as it had, from a system of religious hegemony, where a particular religion was required by the government, the statement of religious liberty was key to those who formed the American governmental system.

Frankly, I would not want to live in a system that required the practice of any particular religion, even mine. Unfortunately, this is not the way that many have practiced the American separation of Church and State. Some practitioners of my own religious heritage have demanded that the system was created by "Christian men, according to Christian principles." This designation is intended, in its application, to claim that the American Constitutional system favors those who practice Christianity.

Honestly, I do not know the religious status of each of those who might lat claim to being a "founding father." I do know that the system was founded on the philosophies of John Locke, and are intended to remain non-religious in both inception and application. The founding principle was, instead, the ownership and protection of property. Our Constitutional system is economic instead of religious. The American system was founded in such a way that no religion could impact ownership of property and the conduct of authority that accompanied it.

The American system is therefore not Christian. The Constitution guarantees that no such distinction could possibly be intended or inferred. Religious liberty formed the foundation of the separation of Church and State in America. That does not mean, however, that there is no dialogue between persons of faith and the government. Quite the contrary, in fact. The promise of religious liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution, allows every person the right and obligation to apply her or his liberties to the demands and expectations that he or she places on the government that represents her or him. Each persons has the right and obligation to ask that the government reflect the ethics of whatever faith that person practices.

While there is a clear separation of Church and State, guaranteed in the United States Constitution, there is also a protected exercise of the religious liberties that form the ethical basis of interaction between the government and those same religious liberties. Faithful men and women, of whatever faith, are obligated to exercise their religious liberties in interaction with the government. Every faith has equal access and equal voice. No religion has more power or authority than any other. This does not free Americans from the exercise of their religious liberties, however. Each person votes her or his conscience. Each person is permitted to act from the foundations of whatever religious principles drive them.

This is good. While some may consider it an attack on Christian principles, I see it, instead, as permission to act from the religious principles of Christianity in relationship with the government, politics, and the systems under which we live as Americans. Instead of arguing the point of Constitutional Christian hegemony, perhaps we could spend our time asking what ethical principles we might demand of our government, our representatives, our systems and ourselves. Since the ethical core of most, if not all, of the world's religious traditions rests in the sacrifice of the self in service to others, then our government, politics and systems benefit from the interaction, as do those who have previously suffered and struggled against them.

The interface between persons of faith, of whatever faith, and the government, politics and systems under which we live is crucial for those who have been victimized, excluded, rejected, even advantaged, by those same systems. That is what is guaranteed by The United States Constitution, as I understand it. That is what is better for all and each of us in the conduct of the religious liberties, so granted and guaranteed.      

1 comment:

Rick Holmes said...

So Carl, do you really think our politicians would be interested is having a dialogue with Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc. about serving the Government? Perhaps this is why they, and others, have perverted the First Admendment to limit such discourse. I don't belive that the Constitution says anything about separating the State and Religion. It says we can't have just one.