What is an appropriate relationship between the institutions of Church and State in
relation to the formation of laws, public policy, and political activity? Refer to the views
of the Founding Fathers as well as current Church/State issues.
The concept of separation of church and state was not specified, nor conceived, directly
in the founding documents of the United States. The term originated in a letter
that Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to a religious group called “Danbury
Baptists” (Jefferson, 1802).
In examining the reading materials and considering the overall question, I asked myself:
Why are we asking if we are a nation founded under Christianity? Should this, if
true, not be self-evident? We have no evidence that the Founding Fathers were
traditional theists. If our country were truly based upon Christian dogma, then I
would ask why there is no mention of Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity in our
founding documents. In fact, there is more empirical evidence to suggest that the
antithesis has more truth and evidence. Thomas Jefferson had written “We hold
these truths to be sacred and undeniable.” Benjamin Franklin crossed out
Jefferson’s wording and changed it to “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”
(JR Benjamin 2014).
What is evident in the Founding Fathers’ dialogues is that the Bible was viewed as a
source of authority, in regards to virtuous behavior and ethical matters. The Bible
was a good tool to use as a foundation for right and wrong.
By means of true-to-term apprehension of the Founding Father’s oral arguments and
subsequent documents, it can be said that we are a nation framed by the morality
presented in the Bible. It can also be said that, in staying true to the genesis of our
nation, we owe ourselves our labor and the fruit stemming from that labor. The
State may not take a position in regards to religious dogma. Neither may the State
prevent one from engaging in his or her own religion. It could be said that
Thomas Jefferson wrote his own ”bible,” which is a direct violation of Revelation
22:18.
With my understanding of the origins of our nation’s laws, it is my belief that the State
should allow people to engage in all religious activities that do not impede
another individual’s rights. The State has a duty only to uphold one’s rights of life,
liberty, and property. It is not for the State to legislate morality or ethics based on
any religious dogma. If we allow the state to legislate morality, I foresee a time
when it could be another religion’s dogma in power, and we, as Christians, could
be struggling for our basic rights. I am in agreement with Martin Niemöller, who
penned the famous statement “First They Came for the Socialists” which ends
with “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me”
(Niemöller 1963). I believe that the State should have no say in who may or may
not be married. While marriage between believers is a contract between God and
man and has set expectations, marriage by the state is a voluntary social contract
by which if two consenting individuals wish to join in marriage, the State has no
right or authority to say otherwise. As reprehensible as certain unions are to
Christians, forcing our beliefs on nonbelievers negates the foundational precepts
of freedom from tyranny.
In David Barton’s video, I noticed that he sometimes made statements with no validity
nor authenticity. Often he “cherry picked” and offered non sequiturs. One of the
biggest recent issues in government intervention into religious beliefs arose in
New York, when a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual
“couple.” This ignited similar confrontations across the country, including
Denver, Colorado (Coffman, 2015). The government intervened with sentiments
that the proprietor was discriminating by making wedding cakes for others but not
for the homosexuals. I believe that the reality of the situation is the cake-making
endeavor belonged to the proprietor’s. The homosexual, by walking into the
proprietor’s establishment, voluntarily consented to the establishment’s values and
conduct. The “delicate snowflake” who was “discriminated against” had the
choice to go to another entity to fulfil his request. In my opinion, the State had no
authority to intervene in these conditions.
Religion and politics are often merged, if nothing else, for mere profit. Many religious
enterprises and people have used Christ to make a quick profit and fund their
high-end lifestyles. “Some ‘ministries’ make Christ a commodity” (Branson
2007, 15).
SOURCES
Branson, Mary Kinney, 2007. Spending God’s Money: Extravagance and Misuse in the
Name of Ministry, 4th Revised Edition. Kingsville Mo., Father’s Press.
Coffman, Keith. August 12, 2015. Colorado appeals court backs gay couple in wedding
cake dispute. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-colorado-bakery-
idUSL1N10O26520150813 (accessed January 27, 2017).
Jefferson Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802. “Collected Writings of Thomas
Jefferson.” The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-
principles/primary-sources/jefferson-s-letter-to-the-danbury-baptists (accessed
January 28, 2017).
JRBenjamin, 2008. Three Words Ben Franklin Crossed out of the Declaration
of Independence. Posted in by JR Benjamin in Political, Philosophy, Politics
https://jrbenjamin.com/2014/04/08/three-words-ben-franklin-crossed-out-of-the-
declaration-of-independence/ (accessed January 28, 2017).
Niemöller, Martin 1963. First They Came for the Socialists. Holocaust Encyclopedia.
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392 (accessed
January 27, 2017).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
