Those who oppose the notion that religious organizations have the right to affect governmental practices often cite the separation of church and state as one of the main reasons to reject such interference. But in a world where even the faces of our coins are emblazoned with the word “God,” is such a separation possible?
In the late 18th century, America became a beacon of hope for those fleeing European tyrants that exercised dominion under the guise of “divine right.” Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association reflects his discord with such rule. In it, Jefferson cites the intent of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In the same document, Jefferson was also first to pen the metaphor of a “wall” between the Church and State — a separation he deemed essential.
Yet within personal documents of the Framers — as those who helped bring the Constitution into being were called — we find that many of them had vastly different opinions on the role religion played in society. Former president John Quincy Adams was a devout Christian who, in a letter to his son, said, “the law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code,” citing the Ten Commandments as a true and essential basis of morality. Jefferson, an adamant anti-Federalist, believed that if any political body were to retain the power to assume religious authority it would be the individual states. President John Adams proclaimed tyranny inevitable once the laws of God are no longer protected by the laws of man. Though the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (among other landmark American documents) were created to form an objective ruling of acceptable living, they are inevitably colored by the beliefs and values of those who helped bring them into being.
Today we find that the contradictions continue: Public schools no longer allow for religious education, yet every child is granted days off for various religious festivities like Hanukkah and Christmas, regardless of whether or not they celebrate it. Those in a court setting continue to swear upon the Bible before testifying, and many criminal justice systems are still influenced by a Deuteronomy verse claiming one witness insufficient to convict a man — hence the creation of a just trial of one’s peers. Politicians in theory design a platform based on their objectives for improving society and voters living within it. But these same goals are guided by an existing set of morals, an altogether intuitive system of what we deem good and right. How then can we claim objectivity?
I cannot condone the efforts of politicians to create a legislature promoting the doctrines and practices of one faith at the expense of another or to grant power to religious groups with considerable political heft, but to strip someone of an aspect of themselves as vital as faith is all but impossible. Rather than deny the existence of religion’s influence on our actions, we should strive to account for it by creating a ruling body that accurately represents the interests of its constituents.
In an ideal world, a moral system could be established that functions globally irrespective of creed. Yet the fact remains that such rules will always require reevaluation based on context. Our power as voters allows us to create a Congress that truly mirrors the population it represents, inclusive of all faiths. Such a system will require communication and compromise, as all ruling bodies do, but to ensure that the interests of every American are safeguarded, it is well worth the effort.