Religious freedom is one of the more crystal clear rights in the Constitution. Explained and clarified by multiple citations from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were the most influential founders behind this particular freedom, they left behind multiple statements which explain the rationale behind the very real principle of separation of church and state. Both men, one a Christian who left little information behind about the depth of his faith, one a Deist who was more of an agnostic, agreed that religious belief was a matter of individual conscience. Madison observed the persecution of Baptists in Virginia at the hands of the state endorsed Anglican church there, while Jefferson, also communicating with a group of Baptists in Connecticut, was also convinced that the Constitution should guarantee freedom of conscience, including religious beliefs, which the government should not endorse or codify into law.
Having grown up in a conservative, Evangelical church, I know all of the arguments they've come up with against "separation of church and state" being a basic constitutional principle. But ironically, from professors at the Baptist university and subsequently the graduate school that I attended, and from which I earned degrees, I came to have an understanding of religious liberty, and separation of church and state, from the perspective left for us by the founders and writers of the Constitution itself, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They established complete religious liberty, not only for Christians, by not distinguishing between or singling out denominations, but for the followers of all religions, regardless of how few adherents they may have had, and particularly for those who followed or practiced no religion, the latter of whom made up the majority of the population of the United States when the constitution was ratified.
Where to Draw the Line With the Law?
At what point does government cross the line into an establishment of religion in its drafting of laws? We can get into a long discussion about religious beliefs and morality as part of the law, and decisions courts have made over the years in drawing these lines. There is no doubt that, in spite of the establishment clause and the clarity of the rationale for it left behind by Madison and Jefferson, a Protestant Christian bias has been dominant throughout most of our history.
We're seeing a resurgence of attempts to enforce Christian principles through the law as Christian nationalism seems to be gaining a following in the Republican party. Some of its ideas have been part of church teaching for centuries. Many of the people in the church in which I grew up believed that law should reflect Christian beliefs because "majority rules." And they don't understand how it can be in a democracy that equality of guaranteed rights means that those who are not Christian, or who do not practice any religion or have religious beliefs, are also protected from laws that would interfere with their freedom and have the same rights as everyone else.
An Issue That Crosses the Line
I'm influenced by the Christian doctrine and theology that governs my practice of Christian faith. In that context, I believe that there are moral choices which can be made that would avoid circumstances leading to an unwanted pregnancy and beyond that, to an abortion. I believe in the sanctity of human life, and that there is a point early in pregnancy when an embryo or fetus becomes sacred and worthy of the protection of the law. I believe that the decision to use abortion as a birth control measure in the case where an earlier, better informed decision would have not resulted in pregnancy, is immoral. The Constitution gives me the liberty to accept this and believe it as a matter of conscience.
But, not all abortions are the result of this kind of choice. A woman who is raped does not have the chance to make a choice based on personal moral convictions. A situation in which a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother is also one in which the choice that must be made has nothing to do with moral principle or faith. Incest and abuse, which are much more common than most people realize, also leave women without a prior choice in the matter. So what then? I may still have a personal perspective when it comes to the morality of the situation, but I'm not the one who will have to live with the outcome.
Most Christians believe that life begins at conception, though there is no specific statement from the Bible, which conservative Christians accept as the only authority for doctrine and practice, that actually says this. There are a few places where Bible writers indicate that a child developing in the womb is a sacred human being, one passage in Psalm 139 comes as close as any to stating that life begins at conception. What it says is, "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." But, this is still a commonly held Christian belief. And it is shared by other religions, including Islam and Buddhism.
But, not all Americans practice a religion and according to the constitution, not having one is also a matter of conscience. The decision to have, or not to have an abortion is rightly governed by the religious beliefs of the woman who is making that decision and if her conscience leads her to believe the life within her is sacred from its conception, then that is her decision. But what about those people who look more to medical science and research to determine to make a determination of viability and have a different perspective about the point at which a fetus becomes a "sacred life" or is viable? Is it an infringement of their conscience if they are denied an abortion if they don't think its wrong? Or, for those who are in a forced situation, which is a considerable number of women and girls now, if the government makes the decision based on a religious principle written into law, is that a violation of their conscience and of their religious freedom?
The Conscience of the Law Maker
Our democracy operates as a Republic, a representative democracy in which people express their will by electing members of the government. And under this same first amendment right, lawmakers have the freedom, as a matter of conscience, to believe in and practice whatever religious faith they choose. Most of our Congress is made up of Protestant Christians. But in exercising their duties as representatives of the people, do they have to set aside their personal religious beliefs in order to represent those of their constituents who don't have religious beliefs, or who are members of a different denomination or practice a different religious faith than Christianity?
I think they do. And as hard as that may be to understand, that's what a democracy looks like.
Lawmakers who support what we call a "woman's right to choose" are not baby killers, nor are they held accountable or responsible by God for understanding that they cannot impose personal religious beliefs on others by using the government and the law. What many of them do understand is that the denial of religious liberty to one group of people, based on the religious convictions of another, will undermine the religious liberty of everyone. If a lawmaker cannot be held responsible for mass killings in schools and churches because they've failed to pass reasonable gun control legislation then lawmakers cannot be held accountable for abortions performed under laws that they've passed.
Digging Down Deep Inside, As a Christian, What's My Response?
"Let us therefore no longer pass judgement on one another but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another." Romans 14:13, NRSV
The Christian gospel was not intended to be compelled by government, and there's no plan or intention in anything Jesus preached and taught that calls for a Christian theocracy along the same lines as the Old Testament theocracy that existed under what the Jews believed was a covenant relationship between their nation and God. The Christian conversion experience is prompted by the spiritual conviction of sin, followed by the response of repentance and grace given by God. That is not something that can be compelled by government, something about which the church's early Apostles are quite clear. Both Paul (Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1-2) and Peter (I Peter 2:13-17) make the separate purposes of government and church very clear. So did Jesus when he rejected the worldly power offered by Satan in one of his temptations, and when he declared to Pilate, "My Kingdom is not of this world."
There can also be no ignoring the words of the Apostle John in his first church epistle, when he says, "Anyone who does not love does not know God." American Christians might be much more successful in their ministry if they took that into consideration in their attitude and actions toward those who feel that abortion is their only option, especially toward those who were victims themselves. Instead of pointing fingers and making accusations of "baby killing" and threatening the fires of hell, genuine Christian love should ask the question, "How can I help you?" That's the best place to start, because, as John says, "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear."
Democracy Means Equality of Freedom
There are no restrictions on Christian belief and practice in the United States. Christians, especially white, conservative Evangelicals, are still privileged when it comes to individual rights and the practice of their faith. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
Christians are called to do more than just tolerate those who hold different beliefs and principles of life. They are called to love them. There's no constitutional restriction on that, nor on stepping up to help women who are in circumstances where they feel powerless, abandoned and trapped that doesn't involve turning them into criminals.
No comments:
Post a Comment