HomeGood morning.
I don’t know how many of you saw it, but the Associated Press carried an article on Saturday morning that I want to quote from:
February 18, 2005 filed at 9:47 p.m. Little Rock, Arkansas.
“The state House on Friday voted against affirming the separation of church and state…
Republican Rep. Michael Lamoureux said [the] resolution wasn’t needed. ‘It’s clear that our founding fathers, that they wanted Christian beliefs…The separation of church and state is not in our Constitution.”
He is wrong; I will return to that in a few moments.
In Spain today there is a vote taking place on whether to approve the proposed Constitution for the European Union.
I have been struck by how similar the debate in Europe has been to our debates of more than two hundred years ago.
One of the questions Europe has faced is the place of religion in society and in the constitution. Should the Constitution recognize Christianity as an influence on society or not? This is an especially interesting debate since one of the candidates for membership is Turkey.
We faced the same choice and erected a wall of separation between religion and state.
The Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom [which was the reading for today] preceded the United State Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, and supported by James Madison who both believed in the right of individual conscience in matters of religion.
Today many conservative religious thinkers tell us that the wall of separation was never intended to really exist, that how the constitution is being interpreted today on religious matters is far different from what the founders intended.
If one goes the web site of the Christian Coalition you will see that they believe that it is they who are under attack.
From their website:
The election demonstrates that a majority of Americans are tired of being told that they should somehow be ashamed of highlighting their faith in the public square - and yet should accept every ideology, depravity or secular idea that liberals promote. The election results show pro-family Americans stood up and said "enough is enough!"
When they say “liberals” they are referring to us. We are religious liberals if not social and political liberals.
Their website says in another place:
Did you ever think the 10 Commandments would come under such attack in our nation?
Did you ever think that marriage would be anything else but one man and one woman?
Did you ever think that it would be unconstitutional to have your child say the pledge of allegiance in school?
Did you ever think that the Supreme Court would rule that virtual child pornography [that is, digitally created - DB] would be constitutional?
Did you ever think that the IRS would impose an absolute ban on all speech that may be regarded as "political" by your pastor or head of any house of worship?
These questions are not being asked by Iraqis under Saddam’s rule these are questions that you and I as citizens of the United States have to ask our self.
Today, we must stand together and "show our colors" as we launch a national movement to allow Christ back into our culture and in the public eye…
We must take action immediately and aggressively. We must take a stand for the heritage of America we know is true! The faith of our forefathers and our Constitution based on Judeo-Christian principles is being systematically divorced from the Christian faith and ultimately the church could lose its right to exist. If we think it can’t happen in the "land of the free and the home of the brave"...think again!
Some federal judges throughout our land have launched an all-out effort on Christian faith in the public square...in your neighborhood, outside your church walls, and in your child’s or grandchild’s school...
What is interesting here is that they are expressing the opinion that it is they who are under attack, that it is they who are threatened.
Our lived experience is our truth. What this shows is how far lived experience can be from reality.
When whites in this nation were told that they had to share the country and the rights they had with those who were of racial minorities, many of them acted with outrage. Many of them claimed that their way of life was threatened. Many of them still do. Go the websites of the Ku Klux Klan or of the Aryan Nation and you will see that same claim. It is nonsense, but it is what they believe. Being told that you are no longer entitled to special privileges can feel as though you are having your rights taken away from you. It is not so, but it can feel that way.
The movement for greater civil rights in this nation insisted that black people did not have to sit in the back of the bus. To those used to sitting up front, having to share that right felt like a loss. And in a sense it is. But it was an unjustifiable privilege.
Over the past few years smokers have made similar complaints. As they have been told that they do not have a right to impose their smoke upon non-smokers, they have felt as though they were losing their rights. But they were not. They have a right to smoke; they have no right to impose their smoke on others. But the loss of the privilege of imposition feels like a loss of rights.
Robert Heinlein, the famous Science Fiction writer, is credited with having said, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” That is simple common sense. And it applies not only to fists but to cigarettes: Your right to smoke ends where my nose begins. If you have been free to impose your smoke upon others, it will feel as though you are losing something when you are told to stop; but that is only because you are not acknowledging the rights of those you have imposed upon.
I believe that is the position that the religious right finds itself in today. It is being told that we as a nation do not presume Christianity as the state religion, and do not confer special privileges upon Christians. That can feel like the denial of rights. It is only the insistence against imposition.
But what of the claim that we are misreading the intent of the founders of this nation?
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (a self proclaimed Unitarian), both from Virginia and both later Presidents of the United States believed in individual conscience in matters of religion. I will focus mostly on Madison in my following remarks.
Historically, our western sense of individual rights grows out of exhaustion, not out of some theological faith rooted in Judaism or Christianity.
In the wake of the religious wars that followed the Reformation, Europe found itself exhausted. While some voices had been raised in defense of the right of individual conscience in religion, it was only the futility of continued warfare that caused many Europeans—not all—to decide to allow first local sovereigns to determine the religion of their people and then, over time, the right of the individual to make that determination.
All of our other individual freedoms—our political and social rights—ultimately derive from that decision. The right for individual conscience underlies our democracy and our western understanding of human rights. Without religious freedom, our other rights are in danger.
The more enlightened of our Founders understood this fact.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights was enacted by the state of Virginia in May of 1776. It was written by George Mason. In his draft of the Declaration, Mason called for “toleration” by the state regarding the exercise of religion. Madison objected to that phrasing. He felt that speaking of “toleration” implied that the state had a right to either tolerate or not tolerate the exercise of religion.
Madison insisted upon a denial of state power and authority to grant religions freedom, because such freedom, he said, comes from natural law. He therefore successfully pushed to have “toleration” changed to “free exercise”. That language, “free exercise”—Madison’s phrase—found itself in our Bill of Rights.
In his writing, “Memorial And Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” Madison argued against establishing not only any denomination as the religion of the state of Virginia, he argued also against establishing Christianity as the religion of the state.
The bedrock for him was individual conscience.
He said, “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?”
Madison saw that any state that can take it upon itself to name Christianity can later take it upon itself to name a particular denomination, and he felt this was wrong.
It is Madison’s words that are enshrined in the Bill Of Rights. It is his ideas that gave birth to those words. They cannot be separated from his meaning. He wanted separation between religion and state, between the ecclesiastical and the secular.
This directly contradicts any claim by conservative religious people today that our Founders intended for us to be a Christian nation.
There is an interesting twist here for Unitarian Universalists. Massachusetts was the last state to maintain established religion, which it did until 1833.
William Ellery Channing was the voice of Unitarianism at the time, having just led the Unitarians out of Congregationalism. But here is the interesting point: Channing argued against disestablishment of the church. He argued that the state has a vested interest in morals and ethics, that the church is a pillar of support for these and so the state has a vested interest in supporting the churches. That is an interesting argument, but I think there is another element.
Congregationalism was the official state religion in Massachusetts. When the Unitarians left Congregationalism, they did not withdraw as individuals and create their own congregations. Instead, entire congregations withdrew from Congregationalism and declared themselves to be Unitarian. When they did so, they maintained their heritage, including receiving funds from state coffers for the support of their clergy, their religious education programs, their pamphlets, etc. Of course, that could not be the reason that Channing supported continuance of Establishment.
Attempts to impose any particular denomination as the state religion, attempts to impose Christianity as the state religion, attempts to impose even just God—and what people mean, of course, by the word “God” is the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahai faith—that is to say, the God of Abraham—any such attempts violate both the spirit and the intent of the Constitutional separation of church and state.
What are we called upon to do or say in response to the attempts to impose religion upon the state?
First, we must remember that our other rights depend upon resisting this attempt.
Any government, any religious authority, any popular majority that can take it upon itself to decide what vision of the divine we must worship—no matter how broad that vision is—can later decide to narrow that vision as much as it wishes. And if any authority can decide what vision of the divine we will worship, in that moment all of the individual rights which flow from the right of conscience in matters of religion become threatened and foundationless. If someone can decide what god we worship, they can decide anything else they wish.
What are we called to do?
Defend the rights of all minorities, religious and otherwise,
Defend the secular nature of our nation.
Speak of our own faith in religious terminology.
Speak our own faith in the public square proudly and forthrightly.
Study Madison and Jefferson to be able to answer falsehood.
Remember to speak with passion but with humility.
Remember that our opponents on this issue are also people of inherent worth and dignity.
Remember to love our neighbor, no matter who they are or what they believe.
Speak to their fears. They are not under attack, but they need to know that. One does not sway another by shouting slogans at them. Hear their fears and speak to them.
Trust that speaking the truth with love will ultimately overcome all obstacles.
Return to
Home
Return to Sermons Index