Be forewarned. This is a long article, and it rambles. If you want to cut to the chase, read the last two paragraphs.
What does the first amendment mean regarding freedom of religion? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." We hear a lot of conservative commentators point out that "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. Huh. Sure enough, not there. Still, just looking at the words, I'm just not sure how it applies to things like displays of the 10 Commandments on public property. And before you ask, no, I'm not going to make any attempt to determine "the intent" of the founders. Why? Glad you asked.
- I would bet the founders themselves would give us a whole range of divergent views. They did about everything else.
- They're dead, so we can't exactly ask their intent. Guessing would be colored by my own opinion.
- They weren't gods that were somehow superior to the law.
Clearly government should not interfere with religious worship. As long as the religion isn't involved with any egregious law-breaking. Ah, but now, when you put in an exception, that opens the flood gates. At what point do you call something egregious law-breaking? For the record, I do support prosecuting child molesters even if religious tradition includes arranged marriages with teenagers. However, in the recent FLDS raid, the authorities removed all the children under the claim that they were all at risk. Something about the communal society being a single household, or a culture of indoctrination, or something. That to me just smacks of religious persecution and a violation of the first amendment. A Texas appeals court happens to agree with me.
Clearly there's a distinction between government interference with religion and religion interference with government, and there's no way to read the text of the amendment to argue that the latter is illegal. Hence, the LDS Church's political involvement with politics in California is not a problem, in my opinion. Besides, the first amendment also says something about free speech. And don't chirp about questioning the church's non-profit status. If you have to earn profits before you can speak, it's not exactly free speech, is it? However, if a church were too involved with government, enough so that the church becomes the government, then there's clearly a problem.
Let's do a thought experiment. What would happen if a Muslim were elected president? (And I'm not talking about Obama here. That myth has been debunked.) According to many Christians (bless their hearts) the world would quickly come to an end. (On a side note, have you noticed that you can say anything you want about someone, and as long as you can say "bless their hearts," they can't take offense?) Anyway, the reasoning is that "this government was founded upon Christian ideals! A Muslim would trample that to the ground!"
I say, not necessarily. In the first place, we have two whole other branches of government that would help keep the Constitution intact. In the second place, this pre-supposes that Muslims would disagree with us in how to run the country. Many already run companies in the same way a Christian would. Our army is in Iraq right now on the theory that a predominantly Muslim nation can actually build an American-style democracy; what better way to prove that theory than to have a Muslim president?
What if we had (*gasp*) a Mormon president? One of the big arguments is the question "what if the Mormon prophet issues a directive and the president has to obey? Will Salt Lake be giving the White House marching orders?" Of course, they said the same thing about John F. Kennedy taking orders from the pope. And again, who's to say that the majority of Americans would disagree with what the prophet says? But OK, let's suppose he makes some statement that has unpopular political implications that might influence the president. Please. Lobbyists influence politicians all the time without any cries about "separation of business and state." (Note to self: this might not be a bad idea!) Polls influence politicians. Other politicians influence politicians. The fact that a religious figure might influence a politician is different... how? Heck, how much influence does the Dalai Lama exert? Does anyone get after President Bush's pastor about influencing him to send troops to Iraq? Just who exactly is allowed to influence the president?
Worst case. Suppose the prophet makes some kind of directive that might infringe on the rights of others, and our president truly finds himself/herself unable to follow the prophet while upholding the Constitution. I sincerely doubt this would ever happen, but let's just suppose. I have just the solution. Resignation. The idea carries such a black mark, but honestly, what greater politician could you think of than one that would sacrifice his own career to preserve his country? How refreshing! (There you go, Mitt, no charge on that one.)
No comments:
Post a Comment