Part IV:  Friend of the Devil – Church and State

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Above is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the first item in the Bill of Rights.  It’s important – important enough that the Founders made freedom of speech and freedom of conscience the first right recognized (not granted) by the Constitution.

The religious, especially religious activists, are fond of pointing out that the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in that amendment.  (The phrase actually comes from Everson v. Board of Education)  That’s a canard.  Such a wall absolutely can and should exist.  Here’s why.

There’s no mistaking that the United States is, by and large, a religious country.  It was more so in the Founder’s day, and in that time there was also the memory of many who fled to the New World in search of religious liberty.  The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, recognizes the inalienable human right of freedom of conscience.

Notice that I don’t say freedom of religion.  Freedom of conscience covers more ground; it not only recognizes the freedom to worship, it also recognizes the freedom not to worship, protecting believer and non-believer alike from any would-be theocrats.  To that end, Congress and, by extension, state governments, are proscribed from making any law that shows any preference for or discrimination against any religion – or the lack thereof.  Remember the basic underlying principle:   What government does for anyone, it should do for everyone, or it should do for no one.

But, like almost anything in government, there are limits to what we can and should tolerate.  For example:

• Education.  Specifically, science education.  While we have publicly funded schools run by local governments, those schools must use time in science classes to teach science.  There have been attempts to teach “alternatives” to science, particularly in the area of biology, where “creation science” and “intelligent design” have advocates among the religious.  Neither of these doctrines are science.  Neither of them have any basis in science.  They don’t belong in the tax-payer-funded schools.  Private schools?  Knock yourself out.  (More on education in a later segment.)
• Advocacy of violence.  The recent Boston bombers were inspired by sermons preached in a Boston-area mosque; the anti-American, fundamentalist Islamist rants they heard there were instrumental in their decision to blow up Americans.  Religious institutions that advocate violence or repression of any kind should not be protected under the First Amendment; that protection stops when the adherents violate other people’s rights.

In fact, there are some things churches have historically done very well – charities, for example.  Many churches run food banks, clothing banks and so forth; applicants may be required to attend a sermon prior to receiving clothes or a meal, but nobody ever said charity had to come with no strings attached.

Should the religious have the right to advocate for public policies (except as denoted above) and political candidates?  Of course.  Every citizen has the right to advocate; that’s the point of the initial part of the First Amendment.  However, as in any other area of public life, their right to swing their fists ends at the noses of their fellow citizens (see Education, above.)

Once again, we come back to that underlying principle:  What government does for anyone, it should do for everyone, or it should do for no one.  That’s what the first clause of the First Amendment means; that’s why government has to be completely neutral where matters of religion are concerned.  The only barrier is the same as in any other area; no citizen may be allowed to violate the rights of another.