Thursday, July 20, 2006

The Church-State Line

Here's an interesting article that shows how blurred the line between church and state can be.

From the article:

[F]ive Roman Catholic Bishops in Wisconsin have come out with statements against capital punishment and also against same-sex unions... [B]oth issues will be referendum questions on the election ballot in Wisconsin this November.

The article goes on to point out that these two positions are often in conflict in our society with those who oppose the death penalty, for example, often in support of same-sex unions, and those who support the death penalty often oppose same-sex unions. This raises the question for Catholics, according to the author, of how one performs one's "civic duty" while being faithful to one's faith.

For me a more interesting and broader question is raised. This is an issue that we often have difficulty with as a society. Some would argue that these bishops are wrong in their attempt to influence the politics of their state. This, according to those who think this way, is an effort by the bishops to use the state to enforce their religious beliefs on others. Those who would criticize the bishops would most commonly fall into the group labeled "liberals" in the US.

I disagree with that common criticism. While I don't support what we saw in the 2004 election cycle of priests/bishops of the Catholic church saying that people who did not follow the "party line" on abortion should be denied communion, I do think that church leaders- of any church or faith- should remind those who share their faith of the basic beliefs of that faith and how they should take those basic beliefs into the world.

Again, the argument is made that this crosses the church-state line. If people vote their faith, and win, then they impose their religious views on others. I don't think this is an accurate take on the matter. No one religious group (given the diversity that exists amongst Christians in the US) can control an outcome this way, so a 'victory' in the election likely appeals across religious lines to general values that are shared values by many.

However, even if the argument of "forcing religious views" is valid, how is it to be avoided? In a society where freedom of religion is the rule, and where people of faith are numerous, how is it possible to prevent a religious influence, even if that were desirable? People, as I've said before, cannot leave their religion outside when they go to vote. It is a fundamental part of who they are. That being the case, whether consciously or not, whether asked to do so by a religious leader or not, their religious values will affect their vote.

Before any liberal readers feel compelled to abandon this ship, let me point this out: the religious left, not just the right, has been a major part of American life, virtually from the beginning. We study Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams in our schools- religious figures who challenged traditional power structures and thinking in the days of the Puritans. Some of the most profound movements in our nation's history have been deeply influenced by the religious left: the Abolitionist movement of the early to mid-1800s; the Social Gospel Movement of the late 1800s to early 1900s; the Civil Rights Movement of the 1940s-60s. If we kick out the religious right, the left goes with it.

A point I try to make when involved in this debate- we cannot de-legitimize political arguments because they have a religious component. Anti-Abortion activists of today are not illegitimate because they act on religious principle any more than the Abolitionists or Civil Rights activists of the past were illegitimate because they were influenced by their religious principles.

We have to debate the issues themselves. Religious values, like it or not, will be a part of that debate.

We need to respect the separation of church and state. We (1) must not force anyone to adopt a religious viewpoint that is not their own, or (2) to give up the religious views that they do hold. The line between these two positions is a fine one, and we cannot simply wish it away by trying (pretending) to arbitrarily force religion out of public life.

GP

No comments: