On the coin, it says, "In God We Trust." In the Pledge of Allegiance, we say, "one nation, under God." When taking an oath of office, the office holder often places a hand on the Bible and says, "So help me God."
George Washington, in his inaugural address, said, "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe."
Perhaps, then, when we wrestle with what separation of church and state should be, we shouldn't separate God from state. It is wise to ensure that no one religious faction controls the government, and that no single church is pronounced the official church and that the rights of all denominations -- Christian and non-Christian -- are protected, as well as those of atheists and agnostics.
I would even say it is right that no elected official should have to place his or her hand on the Bible and say, "So help me God."
But, may he or she forever have that option, and my personal hope is that he or she chooses to include God in the oath.
May everyone have the right to worship as they see fit. May Muslims and Buddhists and Jews have the same civil rights as Christians. When Muslims, or Buddhists, or Jews, or Wiccians, or atheists are elected or appointed, let's not require them to observe any Christian oath or observance. If it is a city council's practice to hold a prayer at the beginning of a meeting and if a person is elected who does not believe in God, let that person be excused from the prayer, or join the group after the prayer, or stand by with eyes open and arms unfolded -- whatever -- and let us not think it wrong or hold ill will toward that person.
But, let us not mandate God out of our government. When public officials want to turn to God, they should be allowed to do so. When they want to acknowledge Him, pray to Him, or honor Him, they should be allowed to do so.
Even more, it is my personal hope that they do. I hope ours remains a Christian nation. I hope our leaders are Christians, God fearing and God abiding, and I believe they should have the right to seek God as they carry out their official duties.
That, too, is freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion, to me, includes being able to practice religion in all settings and in all places, including in the public arena. Freedom of religion, to me, means not being forced to check it at the door. It doesn't mean religion is taboo. It means it is allowed. Simply said, freedom of religion is being able to include religion in all you do, rather than having to exclude it in certain situations.
What, then, of the Constitution, the First Amendment, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Well, to me, this only backs what I have already said. My dictionary shows the meaning of "respecting" as "concerning; about." The Constitution doesn't mandate that religion leave government. It mandates that government leave religion alone.
The First Amendment does not use the terms "religious faction" or "single church." It talks about "religion," which can be either personal, or that of freewheeling assemblies or traditional religious institutions.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the President, he can (and has alway been able to, or not,) raise his right hand, place his left hand on a sacred text, kiss that text, or conclude with a religious codicil, but it is not the constitutional duty of a federal judge to advise or instruct the President to do so. The President does not have to check his religion at the door, but a federal judge does not have the same prerogative when performing a civic function.
In general, oath-takers for civil office or in the courtroom can either affirm or swear to their oath. It is a matter of law prescribed at every level of government. Consequently,the affirm option is always available on an equal basis.
No one that I know of is really saying that religion should "leave government," but those concerned with religious liberty are asserting that law-abiding citizens of any religious persuasion should not have to perculiarly alter their conduct for the sake of conforming to some government regulated theological endorsement.