Stumble It!
Apr 16 2009
Why Separation of Church and State Protects Not Only the State but the Church as Well
Given the recent resurgence of the gay marriage debate in Vermont and in New York (my home state) I would like to repost a previous argument (with minor alterations) archived from December 15, 2008. As stated in earlier posts, I am a devoted Catholic Christian. My intention with this post was and continues to be a constitutional one, not a religious one.
Recently, the gentleman at the Plato’s Cave blog gave readers a look at the Newsweek op-ed on whether the Bible truly prohibited gay marriage. The piece by Lisa Miller cites pointedly the ambiguous relationship of David and Johnathan in 1 Samuel among other themes of marriage not just being that of a man and a woman such as rampantly common polygamy and Jesus’ noted total silence on homosexuality in all of the Gospel texts.
But upon having a lively and very intellectually sound talk with my new friend, I did a bit more research and found a more concerning issue: several bishops in the Roman Catholic Church (of which I am a member) had been actively pushing for congress to pass legislation to “protect” marriage as being between a man and woman.
“What are called ‘homosexual unions,’ because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently nonprocreative, cannot be given the status of marriage.” - The Administrative Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops September 10, 2008
in the same conference, the bishops even cited a recent Vatican document that called legal recognition of same-sex unions “gravely unjust.”
When I first saw this choice of wording, I was perplexed. I thought it was strange that such gravity be placed on the adoption of homosexual unions. But after a vast examination, I now see that the Church simply wishes to honor the unique, complementarity relationship between male and female opposites in nature, whether it be in humans, animals, or vegetation and does not in my view, suggest homophobia in any way. Yet, I thought to myself, “That’s fine, but why is the Catholic Church imposing this view upon the secular and pluralistic state? Aren’t Church and State supposed to be separate?”
According to the United States’ First Amendment,”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.” The very first utterances of the document fully, clearly, concisely and objectively point to the separate and totally free exercise of the governed people and their chosen faith or lack thereof. In saying this, the document makes arguing a religiously-based belief as reason to deny others a right to an opposing belief or lifestyle a tricky and slippery slope by which many freedoms may be subject to change based on others’ disagreement with the free expression of those freedoms. For instance, If Catholic bishops simply choose to make their voices heard to persuade law makers to change their personal views of marriage to agree with the Church - that is the very point of even having any debate. However, if the bishops seek to force those views on non Catholics - that worries me greatly!
To be firmly clear, my lack of support of the bishops’ push for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not to deny the bishops’ right to hold any faith beliefs they wish. Nor is it to deny of affirm validity of the Church’s beliefs. It is simply and only to say that if any religion-specific beliefs are allowed to dictate the policies of a pluralistic, democratic society, it is not only dangerous and injurious to the society as a whole, but it also poses a very troubling dilemma for religious freedom in general.
I love my personal faith very much and my belief in God is without question central to how I live my life. In the past several years, I have in fact grown to have a great and abundant love for my Catholic faith. But it is that same faith that teaches me to respect all people, to not abuse any form of life, and most of all to love those with whom I may have differences, be those, physical, cultural, philosophical or religious. My faith does not tolerate anything less than peace between all the human family. I fear that suggested laws based upon a specifically Catholic viewpoint means forcing my faith upon unwilling ears and eyes. It would be the same as if a Muslim were to force a ban on pork on nonbelievers or more extremely, to tell all citizens to be Muslims. The same can be said of any faith belief being thrust upon any unwilling people. I ask all religious people to ask themselves a few questions. Is faith by force faith at all? Do the majority of religions preach that any hope of betterment can happen by force?
Finally, it should be said that most religions (and I am fairly well versed in several) demand that believers be willing participants in the joy of choosing that belief and not robotic zombies without lively and passionate wills to serve their faith all the days of their lives. Both Christianity and Islam teach that pure-hearted people shall see God, not unwilling hypocrites. Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism teach that a willingness is needed to practice virtuous living. Demanding unwilling people submit to a particular belief by its nature destroys believers’ ability to joyfully choose to do so on their own. It is an argument of personal freedom. It is the only [argument] to live up to the words of Thomas Jefferson in 1776 that all Americans are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Otherwise all freedoms, I fear will be at a grave risk - including the freedoms enjoyed by the Catholic Church itself.
Wax thoughtfully, and willingly.
Note:Waxing Poetically returns to regular posts tomorrow.
Share this post with others:
