Religionists and Separation of Church and State

[mdegges]

I recently listened to Onkar Ghate's lecture about the Separation of Church and State. In it, he defines the proper role of government and of the church, and argues as Locke did, that they are both fundamentally different. Here's a little excerpt about his position:

To say that the church is walled off from the state is to say that the state should take no cognizance of a man’s ideas, religious or otherwise. The state’s concern is only with men’s actions, specifically actions that trespass on rights. It neither persecutes, nor tolerates, nor promotes ideas, because it’s unconcerned with ideas. If the state restricts itself to this function, all men will enjoy freedom of thought and liberty of conscious. To say that the state is walled off from the church means that a citizen, including any faction (including the church), is walled off from using the state’s coercive power to either penalize ideas he dislikes, or support ideas he likes.

Shortly after listening to this lecture, I stumbled upon an article about Mississippi lawmaker Andy Gipson, who was called out in August for citing homophobic bible verses ("...They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.") on his facebook page -- when asked to apologize, he said that he "cannot and will not apologize for the inspired truth of God’s Word."

Gipson is just one example of a sincere religionist who just also happens to be in an important government position. From my understanding of the lecture, I think Ghate would argue that Gipson hasn't personally initiated phyical force against anyone, so with regards to the separation (or metaphorical wall) between church and state, he is in the clear. Is that right? (Because it really strikes me as odd.. Ok- I agree that this guy can have opinions and say whatever he wants. But doesn't it seem like his religious beliefs are influencing his position? ie: that he's "using the state's coercive power to support ideas he likes"?)

So I think the overall question I have about this is, where should the line be drawn between an individual's religious beliefs and his involvement in government? When I try to apply Ghate's separation of church and state lesson to a real example, I get caught in that web of 'Is this guy right? It doesn't sound right. But can I prove he's wrong (Is he even wrong?)?'

[intellectualammo]

He would not be able to pass a law against same-sex marriage on religious grounds. He cited that the only opinion that matters in regards to same-sex marriage is God's not Obama's opinion. So only God's opinion, not man's matters in regards to same-sex marriage. So such reasoning would not be allowed into politics, though he is free to hold such views himself, the government cannot however.

If a man and a woman want to enter into the contract of marriage together, or a woman and anther woman want to, or a man and another man want to, the only concern of the government in regards to it, should only be the actual contract itself, and it could not bar or prevent them from entering into such contracts, or it would be a violation of their rights by interfering with said contracts.

On the one link of yours, he claims he only posted that bible quote to show that it was morally objectionable, a sin. I wonder if that is a rationalization, because he could have ended his bible quote at "detestable". Why did he include the rest then?

Edited October 5, 2012 by intellectualammo

[Dániel Boros]

If he's not an employee than there's no reason to fire him, but that doesn't mean he should not be criticized.

[mdegges]

On the one link of yours, he claims he only posted that bible quote to show that it was morally objectionable, a sin. I wonder if that is a rationalization, because he could have ended his bible quote at "detestable". Why did he include the rest then?

Good point. I'm sure his statement was a rationalization to save face (or save his job). I know when I think something is morally objectionable, I say 'I think that's morally objectionable.' I don't say 'All people who do this are to be put to death, and their blood will be on their own heads.' Maybe that's why I'm not in politics. When a public employee advocates violence (which is what these passages do), it just sounds... fishy. Similar to a member of the KKK advocating the lynchings of african americans, while not actually doing any violent deeds himself.

He would not be able to pass a law against same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

That was my first thought, too- But how would you prove he passed (ie: voted yes) on a law based on religious grounds? I mean there's about 120 other members in the house of reps in his state, which why I'm under the impression that the line between church and state is so blurry. As a citizen you have to have faith that these elected officials (who are usually religious) will separate their religious beliefs from their politics. But do they?

[softwareNerd]

So I think the overall question I have about this is, where should the line be drawn between an individual's religious beliefs and his involvement in government?

A religious person crosses the line when he tries to use force to impose his beliefs on others. Any voter who votes for a politician because he thinks that politician will push a religious belief by force has crossed a line at least to that extent. [Of course, the same is true of voters voting for force in other spheres of life.] The politician who becomes the vehicle for such wishes is even more directly culpable.

If you start with a constitution that enshrines rights, you start with a good base. Presumably such a constitution would not come into being unless it has significant support among voters. Voters who want a secular nation are the first line of defense against religion in government. The structure of government (e.g. having executive, legislature and judiciary separate) is the second check. I suppose it could be appropriate to have all candidates to pledge that they will uphold the constitution and law, including any provisions they disagree with. Another idea is a test of basic constitutional rights before a person is eligible to vote (but such a test would itself need to be part of the constitution). Apart from things like that, one should not disqualify people based on their beliefs.

If a large proportion of the population start to think they should violate the rights of their fellow citizens, a constitution, decades of self-image about their country, and structural checks and balances will slow them down. However, if these beliefs persist and grow, no rules will hold then back forever.

Edited October 6, 2012 by softwareNerd

[intellectualammo]

That was my first thought, too- But how would you prove he passed (ie: voted yes) on a law based on religious grounds?

If he is voting, then his reasons, whatever they may be that guides him in his choice in voting for or against something, are his to have and his right to vote this way or that way based upon those reasons. If they are for religious reasons, then thats still his right. But if whatever he is voting on is imposing religious views into legislature, it would not be allowed to even be voted upon in the first place. For example, he might be voting for a candidate thats Christian, and only voting for him, because hes a Christian. He has the right to. But if that candidate imposes his religious beliefs into politics, that is not his right to do.

Edited October 6, 2012 by intellectualammo

[mdegges]

If a large proportion of the population start to think they should violate the rights of their fellow citizens, a constitution, decades of self-image about their country, and structural checks and balances will slow them down. However, if these beliefs persist and grow, no rules will hold then back forever.

Yes, good points. I agree with you.

A poster from OA also had a good example regarding the separation of church and state:

"The best example of this is Barack Obama, in his own words, we are our "brothers' keepers", "we are better when we spread the wealth around", people need to pay "their fair share" etc. He actively works to put such policy and belief into effect, and the only way to achieve those Marxist ideals is through the violation of rights..."

Also sort of randomly, someone emailed me an extremely short article that DH wrote about Andy Gipson. She concluded: "Of course, they have a right to believe whatever wacky claims they please, however immoral and indefensible. What's not right -- and not acceptable in a free society -- is attempting to give those religious commands force of law." (But didn't go into detail about her position.)