"The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights as only we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782
History teaches us that the two most prolific influences on the development and writing of the Constitution of the United States were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Madison was the key developer of the amendments, designed for the purpose of getting the constitution ratified by the states. Already certain that the constitution sufficiently limited the powers of government, Madison developed these ten amendments to be added as a guarantee of securing individual freedom.
Both Madison and Jefferson had witnessed the struggle of American colonists to combine religious expression with governance. Madison noted in Virginia that the enforcement of the Anglican church's doctrine and rules by the legislative body led to the persecution of those who had determined, by conscience and conviction, not to be part of the Anglican church. Many of those were Baptists, followers of Roger Williams who believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt it. Jefferson affirmed Williams' conviction in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, when he assured its leaders that a "wall of separation," a term originating with Williams, existed in the Constitution between the church and state, in the first amendment.
The Moral Authority for the Law
It has been pretty common in American History classes for school children to be taught that the basis for the Constitution, and for most laws in the United States, is the Bible, because that's what the founding fathers used to write the Constitution. No doubt, among the delegates at that first constitutional convention were men who were Christians, who belonged to churches and studied the Bible and believed in the Christian gospel. James Madison would have been one of those. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, writing to Madison to express his views because he was not at the convention. primarily with regard to a Bill of Rights, was not. Madison had a theological education, Jefferson was an Enlightenement disciple. Yet these two agreed on the establishment clause, the separating of church from state and the freedom of conscience of all Americans with no religious test applied.
So while there are moral influences in constitutional law derived from the Ten Commandments, or the Beatitudes, or the Sermon on the Mount, or the works of Paul the Apostle, it is clear that constitutional law is not based on the Bible, and that the intention of the founding fathers was to make laws which protected people from "acts which are injurious to others," whether those are physical or ideological, but primarily physical, but did not enforce any kind of religious principle, spirituality or belief.
Over time, as the establishment clause has been run over by the predominant Christian expression in the United States, all as a "good cause," the courts have been left to interpret and determine to what extend laws violate individual conscience in the realm of morality and virtue, and to protect the rights of Americans who do not belong to any church, who profess a religion that is not Christianity, or who do not profess any religion at all.
For example, there was once a time when "blue laws" were everywhere, and were particularly restrictive in states with higher percentages of church goers. Stores could not be open on Sunday at all, in some areas, in others, the sale of products like alcoholic beverages or cigarettes could not take place on a Sunday. This was clearly a law that "established" Christianity, because Christians worship primarily on Sunday. But ultimately, courts determined that such laws were more "injurious" to those who did not practice Christianity, including those of other religions like Judaism, by protecting the Christian day of worship instead of the Jewish sabbath, or Muslim salah, or an atheists ability to use time on Sunday for their own purposes, including shopping or eating out or entertainment.
A 21st Century Assault on the Establishment Clause
In spite of all of the claims to the contrary, the United States was not established as a "Christian nation." Clearly it has been heavily influenced by Christianity, more specifically by Protestant Christianity, in its 247 years of existence. And over that period of time, its branches of government have had to grow in their understanding of how the Constitution works in limiting the power of government and protecting individual rights, including the fact that laws which are rooted in one religious faith, specifically the Christian faith, can be injurious to millions of other Americans who practice other faiths or who do not have a conscience govered by religions principles, but by some humanistic philosophy.
Christians have to realize that, while their right to religious freedom is protected, the rights of others are equally protected. That includes Muslims who worship in a mosque on Friday, Jews who worship in a Synagogue on Saturday, Hindus who worship by a meditation walk through a temple, or Native Americans who worship by smoking a dried plant that leads to an alteration of their mind. It also means that the rights of people who are gay, lesbian, or transgender are protected equally as well. It does no injury to anyone for a person to live their life according to the dictates of their own consicence.
Christians may believe that gender identity and sexual preference issues are sinful. They are certainly within their rights to make their point and work to bring about a conversion experience through which these individuals would be "saved," according to whatever Christian tradition was involved. They are free to do this in any way that would not be considered an infringement on the rights of those they are trying to convert, or that would be injurious to them, to use Jefferson's term. Christians may believe that these people are condemned to spiritual death, but there is no law that makes their lifestyle criminal with the death penalty attached. Nor is there any Christian teaching, in correct interpretation of the scripture, that calls for the execution of persons who live in a manner that the church teaches is sinful.
Indeed, God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. John 3:17, NRSV.
And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his son, Jesus Christ and love one another just as he has commanded us. I John 3:23 NRSV
The case has been made in the courts, that the kinds of laws which restrict the involvement of persons who consider themselves gay, lesbian or transgender in society are a violation of their conscience, which is protected by the first amendment. Those laws do not force any private social institution or group, including churches, to accept any involvement of those individuals with whom they disagree regarding their lifestyle. I don't think it enhances the image of a Christian church which is attempting to evangelize its neighborhood and win converts to the Christian gospel to take such an exclusive, restrictive posture toward many of those they are trying to reach, and to their credit, there are many Christian churches who don't. But unless they are engaging in some kind of business that is considered within the public domain, which is prevented from discrimination, they do not have to accept anything that is opposed to their beliefs and convictions.
I head the complaint frequently, specifically among the more conservative Christians I know, that all of the LGBTQ agenda stuff is "being forced down our throats." Of course, the public acknowledgement of holidays like Christmas, Thanksgiving and Easter, which is pervasive over the entire culture, does not constitute Christianity being "forced down anyone's throat," does it? Everyone in this country who doesn't celebrate Christmas holidays is subject to a succession of advertisements, public decorations, displays in stores, radio stations playing nothing but Christmas music from Thanksgiving until New Year's Day, but a few scattered displays and acknowledgements of Pride Month is "forcing the LGBTQ agenda down our throats?"
Is Hannukah, or Passover, or Ramadan made into a national holiday? We just got Juneteenth, and listen to all the caterwauling and crying from conservatives over that. Madison would say that making Christian holidays into national holidays is a violation of the establishment clause, and so would Jefferson.
And let's talk about "cancel culture," shall we? Who boycotts a store because it plays Christmas music, displays decorations and has sales to coerce customers into buying more than they can afford, and putting it on the credit card (which is a sin in some Christian sects)? Boycotting businesses because of Pride Month displays is as much cancel culture as anything that happens in reverse.
And Where's the Tyranny?
It makes me nauseated, and I disengage from conversations which go in the direction of wailing and whining about the way that conservative Christians are "persecuted" in this country. Let me make this abundantly clear. There is no government oppression, suppression or restriction on the churches of this nation, anywhere for anything. While Christians may face some kinds of persecution from others, as has been the case ever since there was a Christianity, the churches in the United States are as free from government control or coercion as any churches anywhere else on the face of the earth. No Christian leaders are being arrested and jailed because of their preaching or teaching, churches are free from having their income taxed, and there are no laws which restrict worship practices except those which, once again, have been determined to be "injurious" to others.
And all that whining about being persecuted during COVID? The fact of the matter is that those restrictions were not exclusively placed on the church, but everyone had to endure them, the restaurant and tourist oriented businesses bore the brunt of it. If only churches had been shut down, then there might be a case for some persecution, but the shutdown included churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, schools, places of business, weight watchers meetings, city council meetings, etc., etc, etc. The church in America was not persecuted by the government, and it is as free to operate as it chooses to do, more so than in any other country on the face of the earth.
So where does it "break the leg" or "picks the pocket" of American Christians when gay people or lesbian people or transgendered persons also excercise their constitutional rights? Yes, this is a rhetorical question because the answer is that their exercise of rights doesn't do this. And no, there is no support anywhere in the scripture for Christians to claim that because there are people in this country who do not live in obedience to what Christians define as "God's law," he will withhold his blessings from America. "America" is a nation, and even in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the only "nation" that was offered a covenant relationship with God was ancient Israel before Jesus. No nation has been offered a covenant by God.
Show Me How Anyone's Pocket is Picked or Leg is Broken by Our Nation's Diversity
There is always a danger, in a free society where consicence and speech are constitutionally protected values, that aberrant, destructive political, religious and social ideology will gain enough of a following to change the operation of the government and tilt it in favor of one perspective or another. And while America was not founded as a Christian nation, the influence of Christianity throughout its history has been pervasive, and sometimes imposing. It has, in some cases, drowned out the protests of the minority, to the point where it has, in effect, infringed damage upon their rights of free expression and in the process, created resentment and hatred of that infringement.
No American Christian would stand for being required to send a small rug to school with their child on Friday, because all students in the school would be required to go to the cafeteria, place the rug on the floor and get into a prostrate position to pray to Allah. But that is exactly the feeling parents who are not Christians had when, at the beginning of every school day, or every class in some cases, students were required to participate in prayer, or required to take a class in Bible instruction as part of the school curriculum. That's the kind of infringement that Americans need to recognize, and instead of wanting to impose their own will because they are the dominant religion or race, be considerate of the fact that the constitution guarantees these rights to everyone equally.
And it is those feelings of superiority, of being better than others because we tend to think that our own cultural practices and institutions are better than those of others who are different. That's a flaw in the human soul that dominates all of the history of humanity on this planet. It's when we see the culture of others as a threat to the existence of our own that we react in ways which feed the tendency toward violence that comes from a destructive, hate-filled political or religious ideology.
America hasn't been paradise for diversity, in spite of its history. This was not "white Christian Europe given another chance by God on a virgin continent rich in resources." Most of America's colonial history was about the domination and subjugation of people who were not like the predominant group. It proved to be catastrophically disastrous for the native population living here who were at a technical disadvantage when it came to weaponry necessary for their own defense, and whose civilization did not mirror what the European intruders thought it should. But it also mirrored the European prejudices and rivalries and hatreds of ethnic nationalities, with those of British descent eventually coming to dominate the others, largely because they got a head start on the Enlightenment, their settlers were more numerous and the crown was willing to invest more in military support.
And in spite of some bright spots and flashes of hope, and the occasional visionary leader, we've never come to what Jefferson and Madison, and the other founding fathers, envisioned as the American ideal. Our idealism is undermined by an ignorance caused by a lack of quality public education, by unequal influences over government and society produced by the concentration of wealth in the hands of very few individuals, by religious zealots who equate God's blessings with financial prosperity, and by outside enemies who seize on the ability to influence through the media because the first amendment allows such a degree of freedom that there is no mechanism in our government for shutting it down. The advances in communication technology, which were thought to be solutions to these problems, have only made them worse.
The ability of Americans to isolate themselves in a bubble, clap their hands over their ears and shut out anything they find disagreeable, or not like themselves, or a threat to their own habits and lifestyle, is exactly why we are unable to find a way to understand each other, recognize our differences, live with our faults and preserve our nation. The answer isn't "If only everyone else would see it our way." The answer is developing a view of the sanctity and value of human existence that respects the individual identity that I believe God gave to each person, and that others simply see as the unique characteristic of humanity.
We have leaders, in men like Jefferson and Madison, who showed us glimpses of an idealism that they believed could one day characterize this nation. So let's look to their wisdom and lose our selfish ambition.
No comments:
Post a Comment