PART II
III. Many Baptist Organizations Still Stand Firm for Separation of Church
and State
The American Baptist Convention, in 1983, issued an official
resolution of the Convention on the separation of church and state. It
reads as follows:
We proclaim that separation of church and state is central to our American
heritage; that it has made possible a measure of freedom not previously
achieved under any other system; that it is indispensable to our national
policy of equal rights for all religious and special privileges for no
religion.
Church and state are separate not only in their functions, but also in the
source of their financing. Government being under public control is
properly financed by taxation. Membership in religious institutions and
organizations is voluntary, and therefore should be supported by voluntary
contributions. We believe that the use of tax money for support of
religious groups is in opposition to the spirit and letter of the
Constitution.
We object strenuously [ ] to any proposal that taxes or borrowing power be
used to make grants or loans to sectarian or church-related schools. We
emphasize that the use of government finances in support of any sectarian
purpose is a violation of basic religious liberties for it coerces citizens
to support religious objectives which many of them cannot conscientiously
approve.[xx]
The Southern Baptist Convention, too, has taken an official
position in support of the separation of church and state. In Baptist
Faith and Message, the official document summarizing Southern Baptist
beliefs,[xxi] the Convention states:
Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church
protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In
providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should
be favored by the state more than others.
One of the strongest voices today in support of separation of
church and state is the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, whose
Executive Director, J. Brnet Walker, states: "No voice at the intersection
of church and state has been more consistent, reliable and sensible during
the past six decades than that of the Baptist Joint Committee. That's why
no voice today is more trusted. As we face the challenges of the year 2000
and beyond, we recommit ourselves to the proven principle that the
separation of church and state is the best way to ensure religious liberty
for all." The Mission Statement of the Baptist Joint Committee "is to
defend and extend God-given religious liberty for all, bringing a uniquely
Baptist witness to the principle that religion must be freely exercised,
neither advanced nor inhibited by government."[xxii]
There are many other examples of Baptists speaking out on
separation of church are found in sermons being preached in Baptist
churches throughout the United States . Thomas R. McKibbens, Senior Pastor
of First Baptist Church in Newton Centre, Massachusetts , for example
writes:
Some Baptists have a hard time with the notion that our nation was not
founded as a "Christian nation." True, there were many Christians among
the founders, but it was clearly founded on ideal of liberty for all
religions, whether Christian or not…. The people called Baptists have
played a major role in this issue from the beginning…. Why? Because they
knew what it was like for the state to favor one form of religion. They
knew that the best way to kill vital religion was for the state to prop it
up….
This nation has the strongest, most vital religious intuitions
in the world. While it has the most religious freedom, it has the least
religious conflict, the largest number of people in
church/synagogue/temple/mosque every week, the highest percentage of
voluntary religious participants, the most missionaries and people-helpers
sent out to other countries, and the best record of giving for religious
causes of any nation on the face of the earth! This is what happens when a
nation takes seriously what Roger Williams called "the lively experiment."
It works! The First Amendment is not broken-it doesn't need fixing. This
has been a Baptist passion.[xxiii]
Many Baptist teachers and pastors have been actively preaching
on the importance of maintaining the separation of church and state. James
Dunn, visiting professor of Christianity and public policy at Wake Forest
Divinity School says: "I personally and passionately believe that Baptist
Christians are an identifiable breed. One of our marks is separation of
church and state." He adds, "True, separation of church and state does not
define Baptist theology, but it is a logical, inextricable corollary of
religious liberty as we know it. It is the plug which, if pulled out of
our machine, the motor dies. We go no more." Finally, he states: "Anyone
who claims a devotion to religious liberty but questions the validity of
church-state separation may be a devout Christian, but that person is not
an authentic Baptist. If you dismiss the separation of church and state as
some irrelevant optional teaching, I can say you are not a Baptist."[xxiv]
IV. Government Support for Religion Backfires against Judeo- Christian
Religions
Government support of religion may wildly backfire for
Christians because in reality we as a nation can never allow a minority
religion to be harmed by government action. Instead, the minority (and
even cult religions) will be put on equal footing. Moreover, they may be
for the first time seen as religion with the seal of approval of the
government -- and with their vast new federal financing under faith-based
initiatives will be able to compete aggressively against the better funded
mainline religions. In fact, even the Wicca "religion" has already
benefited from the new thinking.
A judge in Virginia recently ruled that since the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County invited Jews and Christians to lead
prayer before a local county board meeting, the Wiccans were entitled to
the same privilege and must be put on the agenda to lead prayer. As
explained by the Judge who wrote the decision in the case, "[I]f the
government establishes a forum to which it invites a class of speakers for
a specific purpose, it cannot exclude some class members because of a
difference in viewpoint…. Here, [Simpson] is a representative of an
acknowledged, albeit minority religion. Nevertheless, she stood prepared
to offer an invocation consistent with the only guidelines government could
constitutionally command under the circumstances. She was presumptively
excluded because of a stated governmental preference for a different set of
religious beliefs and viewpoint, albeit the beliefs of a larger segment –
if not the majority – of the population. Such a policy of exclusion cannot
survive constitutional scrutiny."[xxv]
Some Christians argue that the hypotheticals presented in the
discussion that follows below can never occur in real life because the
United was founded as a Christian or Judeo-Christian nation and thus there
is no basis for placing non Judeo-Christian religious monuments and
commandments on properties, or for leading anything other than
Judeo-Christian prayer and mediations in schools. But that argument falls
on its face since it clearly prefers one religion over another -- precisely
what the First Amendment seeks to avoid. Even if the First Amendment is
interpreted narrowly, as some like to do, to argue that it only means that
the government is not to impose a national religion, that interpretation is
unworkable in our currently pluralistic society in which all religions need
to have equal protection and equal freedom.
Unfortunately, a surprising number of people don't seem to
understand and appreciate that the Constitution is intended to treat all
religions equally regardless of how weird the majority of the population
might think those religions are. Indeed, the Constitution is designed to
protect the minority against the "tyranny of the majority." For example, in
response to the request by Ms. Simpson to the Chesterfield Board of
Supervisors to have her name added to the list of volunteers to lead
prayer, the Chesterfield County Attorney wrote to her stating: "
Chesterfield 's non-sectarian invocations are traditionally made to a
divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition. Based upon
our review of Wicca, it is neo-pagan and invokes polytheistic,
pre-Christian deities. Accordingly, we cannot honor your request to be
included on the list of religious leaders that are invited to provide
invocations at the meetings of the Board of Supervisors."
In deciding against the county the court was no doubt
influenced by the County Attorney's letter which rather candidly admits
that the government favors one divinity over another and one set of
religious beliefs over another – exactly what the Virginia Constitution
prohibits, and what the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, (as made
applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment) prohibits.[xxvi]
V. Ten Commandments in Government Buildings
Is it appropriate for a branch of the federal or state
governments to install a large display of the Ten Commandments in court
houses or other government buildings, as was done by the Chief Judge of the
Alabama Supreme Court? The First Commandment carved into the rock is "I am
the Lord your God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Although
the Ten Commandments contain sound moral principles concerning man's
relationship to fellow man on such matters as murder, stealing, adultery,
coveting, and bearing false witness, they also contain commands
specifically concerning man's relationship with God – and not just any
god—but Jehovah God, the god of the Jews and the Christians. The command to
honor the Sabbath, likewise, is not one that has any meaning to people
other than those who are Jewish or Christian. How then can one argue that
the Ten Commandments are not particular to any one religion and that
placing them in a public building by an official act of government
officials does not "respect" one religion over another?
Writing for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs,
Executive Director, J. Brent Walker, states that the debate that led to the
Ten Commandments being moved is not about whether the Commandments teach
sound theology or wholesome ethics but rather, "the question is who is the
right teacher – the government or the families, churches and synagogues? I
can think of few things more desirable than for people to read and obey the
Ten Commandments. I can think of little worse than for government
officials to tell citizens to do so."[xxvii]
Mr. Walker says "The Ten Commandments display in Alabama
clearly violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. But important
theological and practical reasons should convince people of faith to object
to government getting involved in displaying, and thereby endorsing holy
writ." For one thing, he says, "It puts government officials in the role
of secular high priests deciding which rendition of the Ten Commandments
will be enshrined as orthodox. Which one, Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5?
Which version, Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant?"[xxviii] He concludes, "For
those who take the Ten Commandments seriously, let us write them on our
hearts, as the prophet Jeremiah instructed, instead of displaying them in
government courthouses. Then we'll be able to incarnate the love of God
perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ, and make a real difference in our
world."[xxix]
A recent conversation I had with a Seventh Day Adventist gave
me some useful insight into how some of us justify choosing one set of
religious commandments over another to place into public buildings. I
asked what he thought of the Ten Commandments display in the Alabama
courthouse. He said he supported it. I then asked how he would feel if the
display had been of the Roman Catholic version of the Ten Commandments
instead of the Protestant version. The Roman Catholic version omits the
Second Commandment of the Protestant version and divides the 10th
commandment of the Protestant version into two separate commandments so as
to have a full ten commandments. His response was, "Well, that wouldn't
be right because theirs isn't the correct version of the commandments. They
changed them."
Christian denominations are not in agreement as to how to
number the Ten Commandments or even what the precise wording should be for
each of the Commandments. I'm sure the Catholics likewise feel that the
Protestant version isn't quite right. After all, they the Ten Commandments
were posted in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches and literature
for hundreds of years before the Protestants came along in the 1500's with
Martin Luther and interpreted them differently and "changed them" from the
earlier version.
Thus, in choosing the Ten Commandments of one Christian
denomination over those of another denomination, the Alabama judge took
action "respecting" the establishment of one religion or denomination over
another. He chose Commandments that resemble the Jewish and Protestant
versions more than they do the Catholic version. One can surmise from this
that he is not Catholic and that he would share the opinion of the woman I
interviewed with respect to the Catholic version." Theirs isn't right."
After all, he's a judge. And in this case he judged religion and chose one
over another – on behalf of the highest court in his state.
Ironically, the rendition of the Ten Commandments Alabama Court
Chief Justice Judge Roy Moore carved onto the rock he placed in the
courthouse should not be pleasing to any faith since there were a total of
eleven commandments on his rock, apparently attempting a compromise between
the Jewish and Protestant versions. So, they are quite Jewish. They
aren't quite Protestant. They aren't Catholic. And let's not forget that
they are most certainly not Hindu or Buddhist commandments. The "God"
referred to in the Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other God before me" is
most certainly understood by Jews and Christians to mean Jehovah God.
Justice Moore, as a Christian has made it abundantly clear that this is how
he understands it and what he meant when he had the words carved.
It is difficult to imagine, therefore, how he could possibly
argue that the highest court of his state was not giving preference and
"respecting the establishment" of religion that serves Jehovah God over
Hindus and Buddhists who serve other gods. Some might even question
whether Jehovah of the Jews and Christians is the same God as Allah of the
Muslims. If not, then once again, posting the Ten Commandments in a
government building is fostering and giving preference to Judeo-Christian
religion over the religion of Islam.
.
|
