That Perennial "God-and-Caesar" Question!

From the beginning of this country's history, the relationship of religion to civil secular government has been, and continues to be, a topic of considerable public controversy.

The U.S. Constitution, not the Bible or any other religion's holy book, is the ruling document of this country. Nevertheless, many of the concepts brought to bear upon the formation and organization of the American government can be said to have been inspired by Bible scripture. For example, the presumption of innocence of somebody accused of a crime until guilt is proven goes back to one of the Ten Commandments saying, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." The notion of individual rights not rescindable either by government or by majority will is reflected in the Bible, Matthew 18:11-14, where Jesus Christ declares the supreme importance in God's eyes of every single sheep of the flock. The notion of limited and enumerated government designed to preclude the arbitrary and wicked rule of evil men is found in Jeremiah 17:9, which declares the heart of man to be desparately wicked--who could know it? The founders of America knew it, from ample experience and observation of cruel monarchies in the European Old World. In response, they gave us tripartite government, in the which no one ruler would have too much power.

Many Americans of liberal persuasion claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates complete separation of church from state. Those exact words appear nowhere in the text of the Constitution, but there is a provision in the Constitution, saying there shall exist no religious litmus test, in deciding fitness of aspirants to occupy various civil secular government offices. Also, the previous Old World experience of this nation's founders would strongly suggest that they did not want to have power and authority vested simultaneously in the same people on behalf of both the church and the civil secular state. In this sense, we must have "separation of church and state". But in a larger sense, the fact must be recognized that laws, rules and regulations are always based upon religious or anti-religious presumptions, there is no such thing as "religious neutrality" in law. And who among us would be willing to rescind from the law books all laws against theft and murder, just because "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are found in the Ten Commandments?

What the U.S. Constitution First Amendment says is, "Congress shall make no law....concerning the establishment and free practice of religion." What this means is that government shall not use its coercive mechanisms and institutions, in order to forcibly compel anybody to participate or not participate in any religious activity. In our day, much protest has been made over various forms of religious display and exercise engaged in on public property, even when said displays and exercises were made on a completely voluntary basis. It is at least doubtful that America's founders had this interpretation of the First Amendment in mind, when they wrote it. So long as government is not resorting to coercion through the passage and enforcement of laws concerning religion, it is by no means promoting religion per se, to merely passively allow religious activity to take place on government-owned or other public property, devoid of government leadership or direction over the activity.

In recent years, proposals have been made to legally prevent certain passages from the Bible from being read in Christian churches, on the grounds that said passages supposedly constitute "hate speech". The only legally and morally appropriate answer here is that whatever a rabbi, a minister, a priest, an imam or other religious leader tells his congregants in a house of worship on the day designated by that religion for worship is none of government's business! Likewise, if both religious teachings and the civil secular government address a particularly important issue of our national life, American citizens should be absolutely free to state their opinions on said subjects without fear of retaliatory punishment from either the church or civil secular government side. Gay rights and abortion are two of several-such examples of shared interest and concern between God and Caesar.

Religious teachings are no good, unless they are translated into practical action in the outside world. The alleged bottom-line purpose for religion's existence is to make the rest of the world a better place in which all mankind can live. The Bible speaks of men not lighting candles to then only hold them under bushel-baskets. There has been debate within religious communities as to whether adherents of various religions should be fixated on making this world better, or on preparing one's self for a next life beyond this one. This author believes religion must focus on both goals, in order to be worthy of its name.

From time to time, both law courts and legislatures have changed laws, saying previous laws are "unjust". On what basis are they "unjust", if nothing higher than human standard of moral rectitude is being invoked to evaluate them? As a stark example, slavery was practiced all over the world for four millenia, before anybody began to say the practice might be wrong. Also, the notion of a legally-enforced racial equality among all races of men is a relatively recent phenomenon, not strongly in evidence anywhere in the world before the 20th century. Yet, these ideas also go back to Bible scripture: God is not a respecter of persons(Acts 10:34-35), and if we have respect to persons(i.e. discrimination), this is morally wrong(James 2:9-10). At this juncture, something must be said about the legal referent to precedent(stare decisis): How far back do men want to go in history, to decide which precedent represents the right thing to do? Does long-standing historical practice of a particular mode of behaviour, in itself, justify indefinite continuation of that practice? Again, the four-millenia slavery example must be remembered. Some Americans say too that we should not look to foreign countries as a basis for interpreting the U.S. Constitution. But the drama of the Bible unfolds in a completely different time and place from that of contemporary America. Separation of church from state, anybody?

The United States of America is not by any means a theocracy, per se. Yet, its form of government having been designed by Christians, bequeathed since that time a country where persons of all religious persuasion, and even those of no religious persuasion, could flourish far better than they might in other countries where religions outside of Christianity are dominant. That fact should always be celebrated as the "amazing grace" of the United States of America. How sweet that sound!

-Lawrence K. Marsh