Matthew Miano Professor Buracker Intro to the New Testament 30 November 2012 Faith and Government in America One

of the many issues facing Americans today is the relationship between religion and government and their mutual influence on public policy. Separation of church and state is one of the core tenants of the United States that ensures religious liberty in America. After gaining our independence, the Founding Fathers crafted our Constitution which laid out the rights of the American citizens; its first amendment dealing with religious freedom and the government not allowed prohibiting it. Today, many Americans fear this country may become a theocracy under a Republican leadership in the government while others feel it will become a secularized country under Democratic leadership. Both groups have their own reservations about religion and government having a relationship with one another, so where is the line drawn? The relationship varies depending on the political issue it is relevant to, though it must be a constitutional relationship; thus faith and government can co-exist in America, provided related legislation that is proposed and passed by the federal government does not violate the religious liberties of Americans. In order to set the stage for exploring the relationship between the two concepts, the historical context of religion and religious liberty in America must be established.

In the 18th century, the Founding Fathers were more than just representatives of their colonies. They were highly educated men from various backgrounds and careers.1 More importantly, they were incredibly diverse in faith, ranging from Congregationalist to Lutheran to Roman Catholic (Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists, not atheists as some scholars assert)2 According to constitutional lawyer Mark Levin, they believed inalienable, fundamental rights should not come from man but from a higher being, so man would not be able to deny these rights to others. However, after America gained independence from England, there was much religious tension in the newly formed country: [States] continued to promote religion with taxes and land grants. Some states required officials to affirm their allegiance to a particular religion or religious sect by way of an oath. . . and some continued to discriminate against certain religions. But when they bound themselves to the Declarations principles, they bound themselves to, among other things, religious liberty.3 (28) The Founders recognized this to be very problematic for America. As a result, when the Constitution was being crafted, the Framers wrote the First Amendment with great pragmatism in regards to the concept of the separation of church and state. They were in great opposition to a national religion and believed any type of theocracy would ultimately destroy religious liberty and liberty altogether. At the same time, they believed in religious liberty and that the government cannot prohibit it. The Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution could have easily created a theocratic government, but they did not. They understood the need for religious

1
2

"The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity." Encyclopedia Britannica. Levin, Mark R. Liberty and Tyranny. Levin

liberty in a country that fought for freedom years earlier, in a country where individuals would not be persecuted by the government for their religious beliefs. So what does the New Testament say about the relationship between government and God? Romans 13 seems to provide an answer: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established (13:1). According to Dr. Michael Morrison of the Grace Communion Seminary, Paul states Christians are to answer to not the rulers themselves, but to the office of the ruler.4 In addition, Paul does not seem to advocate for theocratic rule, thus Morrison asserts that government was established by God, and in turn, we ought to answer to whatever government we are under (hence, Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance and the reference to a Creator in the Declaration of Independence). Christians can obey and honor governments even if they are not theocratic in nature, given they do not restrict religious liberty. Morrison even states that we the people can even declare an injustice and vote out leaders and elect new ones: If Caesar demands to be called Lord and God (as Domitian did a few decades after Paul wrote), Christians should refuse, even at risk of their lives . . . It is not wrong to resist specific injustices, but it is wrong to work against government itself. Those who rebel against a God-ordained authority will bring judgment on themselves. Civil government is temporary, but it has been established by God.5 This seems to go hand in hand with the question of whether faith-based groups can remain faithful to a government that violates their rights. What is such a group to do if their right

Morrison, Michael. Christians and the Government: Romans 13 Morrision, Michael

to freely worship is infringed upon? They have the option of rectifying the problem legally or at the ballot box during elections, even leaving the country to seek better religious protection, but not to overthrow the government as a result; Romans prohibits the latter. While direct religious persecution is not a problem today, the infringement on peoples religious liberty can be considered indirect with certain policies passed by the United States government affecting each American. It is not uncommon to see legislation passed that is influenced by a politicians religious beliefs, especially on social issues. Some of these policies are unclear in terms of their constitutionality. While they are well-intentioned, they can have unprecedented consequences on the American people and religious institutions. So what of these politicians who legislate on the basis of their faith? What of the faith-based groups that may be negatively impacted by federal legislation? In light of the history of the Constitution, both of these questions are certainly problematic. The answers really depend on the legislation passed by Congress and its constitutionality; this can be done by looking at specific issues and laws involving religious liberty and laws borne from a lawmakers religious beliefs. Take for example the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which was intended to provide affordable access to health insurance for all Americans. The Washington Post reported the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) planned to sue the federal government over certain provisions in the ACA, such as subsidized abortions and mandating religious institutions and private employers provide some form of contraceptive care for their employees and/or clients.6 The group claims it violates religious freedom because the statutes of the ACA mandate religious institutions to do what their religion commands them not to do; in this case, violating the Catholic belief of the life of the unborn being protected. Should they
6

Bishops respond to Supreme Court ruling; renew plea to repair Affordable Care Act. Washington Post

remain faithful to the federal government? If they feel they are being persecuted, they have every right to take legal action to right a wrong in this case (which they are planning to do through a lawsuit and not by overthrowing the government). According to officials such as Vice President Joe Biden during the 2012 Presidential debates, this mandate does not seem to do what the USCCB claims it does, stating no religious institution or employer of any kind will be required to provide contraceptives.7 One would believe his statement carries a heavy implication of the constitutionality of this particular mandate as a result. But who is correct? According to the USCCB, the Vice Presidents statement is factually incorrect, if not dubious: The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain "religious employers." That exemption was made final in February [2012] and does not extend to "Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital," or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.8 Essentially, there is no guarantee in the Affordable Care Act for certain employers, religious or otherwise, who would be able to conscientiously object to being mandated to provide contraceptive measures. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution involving the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Here, the federal government is mandating private/religious institutions and employers to deviate away from their beliefs to abide by federal law; their religious liberty is violated in turn. No employer or institution ought to be forced to provide a service or product which conflicts with their personal beliefs, or be
7

2012 vice-presidential debate: Vice President Biden and Rep. Paul Ryans remarks in Danville, Ky., on Oct.11

(running transcript). Washington Post

8

USCCB Responds To Inaccurate Statement Of Fact On HHS Mandate Made During Vice Presidential Debate

mandated to provide a service if they choose not to. In my opinion this is simply not only a violation of religious liberty, but of liberty in general. What about politicians who legislate based on their religion? One notorious example involves gay marriage. This is a polarizing issue that has divided Americans for years.. Historically, the endorsement of a federal ban on gay marriage has often been viewed by supporters of gay marriage as a progression to a more theocratic government by predominately Christian politicians.9 Obviously this would seem to violate the principle of the separation of church and state as a result. But is there a federal ban on gay marriage? Not really. Although The Defense of Marriage Act passed under the Clinton Administration in the 1990s defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, it does not prevent the states from legalizing civil unions between homosexuals; this is legal under the Tenth Amendment. Proponents state that this law is vital to the sanctity of marriage. That is not to say the law is sound, since it does prevent homosexual couples the same marital benefits as heterosexual couples; DOMA can be considered unconstitutional in this regard10. Despite this, there is no denying that DOMA was religiously-motivated legislation that has come under intense scrutiny over the years and is potentially unconstitutional. I believe it is unconstitutional on the federal level in regards to same-sex couples not receiving the same benefits as heterosexual couples. In my opinion, the states alone should have the power to legislate civil unions between homosexuals, though a union between any two people of any sexuality should have the same benefits as anyone else in the same union. This is
9

Strasser, Mark. Some Observations about Doma, Marriages, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships. Capital

University Law Review

10

Cain, Patricia, A. Federal Tax Consequences of Civil Unions. Capital University Law Review

not to say that politicians cannot legislate on the basis of their faith. They most certainly can, provided it does not violate the First Amendment. If no law is established forcing people to abide by a specific religious principle or prohibiting the free exercise of ones faith, then a politician can legislate on their faith. The debate over faith and government has even reached the classroom, where the issue of prayer in public school has been a major one for many years. While school-sanctioned prayer has been banned nation-wide, this does not mean praying is banned in public school altogether. Just because public schools allow their students or teachers to pray on their own or hold Christmas pageants does not mean a theocracy is being established.11 No one is being forced to pray and no one is being asked to convert to any particular faith. A student can pray in the schoolyard with his friends just as two educators can pray for a sick colleague in the faculty lounge. Levin argues one should not let their sensibilities get the better of them and that anyone can be offended by anything: Some might be uncomfortable or offended by these events, but individuals are uncomfortable all the time over all kinds of government activities. Some might oppose the use of their tax dollars to support these events . . . Individuals oppose the manner in which government uses their tax dollars all the time. That does not make the uses unconstitutional.12 (33) Faith and government sharing a relationship may seem like an odd union of concepts, but both were vital for the founding of America. Our Founding Fathers determined that America should not be a secularized nor theocratic country. They believed that fostering liberty, including
11

Levin Levin

12

religious liberty, was vital for the future of Americas freedom. Even the New Testament implies that Christians can potentially live under a non-theocracy and still worship freely. In the end, government and religion can and cannot co-exist in certain circumstances. Religious liberty is one of the many freedoms we have as Americans, and it must not be taken for granted.

Bibliography "The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity." Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 05 Oct. 2012. Levin, Mark R. Liberty and Tyranny. New York: Threshold Editions, 2009. Strasser, Mark. Some Observations about Doma, Marriages, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships. Capital University Law Review 30 Cap. U. L. Rev. (2002): 363-367. Cain, Patricia, A. Federal Tax Consequences of Civil Unions. Capital University Law Review 30 Cap. U. L. Rev. (2002): 387-393. Washington Post (2012, June 28) Bishops respond to Supreme Court ruling; renew plea to repair Affordable Care Act. Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2012, from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/bishops-respond-to-supreme-courtruling-renew-plea-to-repair-affordable-care-act/2012/06/28/gJQAqx5L9V_story.html Washington Post (2012, October 12) 2012 vice-presidential debate: Vice President Biden and Rep. Paul Ryans remarks in Danville, Ky., on Oct.11 (running transcript). Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2012, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-vice-presidential-debatevice-president-biden-and-rep-paul-ryans-remarks-in-danville-ky-on-oct11-runningtranscript/2012/10/11/a5167f1e-13cd-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story_4.html Morrison, Michael. Christians and the Government: Romans 13. Grace Communion International. Retrieved October 23, 2012, from http://www.gci.org/bible/rom13 USCCB. (12 October 2012) USCCB Responds To Inaccurate Statement Of Fact On HHS Mandate Made During Vice Presidential Debate. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Retrieved October 26, 2012, from http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-163.cfm