Government Secularism a Must!
On September 12, 1960 Senator John F. Kennedy
addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association and spoke to the
attendees about a matter which had taken over the course of his campaign to
become the 35th President of the United
States. As a Roman Catholic
minority he was facing a major hurdle in getting elected because of his
religious affiliation. During his speech he made it clear that his belief
was for an America “where
the separation of church and state is absolute.”
It is with this same mindset that we should
analyze the effects of religious doctrine on our past and view our current
political situation. We are not a nation of Catholics or Protestants, nor are we
a Muslim country, which have existed in the past and currently exist elsewhere
in the world. America is all
faiths and none and our Government of, by, and for the people should be
representative of that fact. As our 44th President said: “...If I seek to
pass a law banning the practice [of abortion] I cannot simply point to the
teachings of my church or evoke God’s will.” An argument must be made
that can be related to all people, regardless of religious beliefs.
Looking back into our history we can see many examples of the bleeding of
religious doctrine, thoughts, and ideals negatively impacts a nation’s ability
to foster equality.
There is no doubt that at one time in human
history slavery was commonplace. Owning,
punishing, even killing a slave was not considered immoral behavior. Today, I very much doubt that you could find
a single person who would publicly state that slavery of any form should be
tolerated. Have you ever stopped and
wondered why that is? How does something go from being tolerated and accepted
to abhorred within a relatively short amount of time. In America, it
happened about one hundred and fifty years ago, President Abraham Lincoln signed
the Emancipation Proclamation, effectively the killing stroke that tore down the
wall that religious ignorance had built up. At least in regards to slavery. During the days of the Old Testament slavery was commonplace, it was not
considered evil by most people, it was a normal. Some might have even argued it was a necessary component of human nature. There is even a passage
in the book of exodus in the Old Testament that explains in detail how to
compensate a fellow slave owner for their damaged “property” (Exodus 21:32). I make reference to these passages only to
show that the practice was commonplace and considered normal, not immoral and
was approved by this faith. The
Encyclopedia Britannica claims evidence for slavery takes us as far back as
1800 BCE,
almost 4000 years ago. Which means for the majority of our recorded history,
and likely all history, slavery was normal.
Today though, in America, we
know better.
In the last fifty years America has
made great leaps towards our founding father’s ideals that all men are equal. Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. aided our nation greatly by standing up to the laws of
his day and challenging their morality. He asserted that men should not
be judged on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.
He took a stand against the remnants of religious doctrine which believed
that there exists, in our world, human beings that are not deserving of
equality, that somehow they are inferior.
A modern day equivalent can be drawn when we compare gay rights, because
the only argument against allowing a same sex couple to marry is a religious
one. It should therefore be obvious to
everyone that this is a blatant example of one group’s beliefs infringing on
another’s rights. In America, you
have the right to believe whatever you want.
You do not have the right to force those beliefs on another and
“congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” If those who are against gay marriage would
continue to support their claim, they must do so in a way that translates to people
of all faiths and none and every court justice who refuses to conduct a
marriage based on solely religious reasons should be disbarred for refusal to
uphold the 1st amendment of the constitution. Our public officials are required to swear or
affirm an oath of office, and while they may choose to make this oath upon a
bible, they are swearing to uphold the constitution, not the bible. John Quincy Adams swore his presidential oath
on a book of law.
Customs, morality, and traditions are not
static. They ebb and flow from one
society to the next as they change, grow, and we learn more about each other.
We must have, and indeed do have, in place a system that takes into account all
religious perspective while being itself none.
At their most basic levels, religions cannot compromise. There can be no middle ground between whether
or not Jesus was a prophet or the son of a god, it is this very polarized idea
which keeps religions apart. You are
either with them or against them and this is why politicians must be objective,
should be able to compromise. Recently,
in a win for continued separation, a district court judge ruled in favor of
Jessica Ahlquist in Ahlquist vs. Cranston.
The judge ruled that a public school prayer banner was in violation of
the establishment clause. The ruling
does not restrict any individual from practicing whatever faith they choose,
but it does restrict a public school that uses public funds from endorsing or
promoting a specific religious belief.
Many who do not support the separation of church
and state will claim that removing God from the equation has had disastrous
effects on the rate of crime, teenage pregnancy and test scores. They claim religion, and its morality, is a
necessity to fight these rising statistics.
The claim here is that when religious teachings are absent bad things
happen, but according to a 2008 American Religious Identification Survey
greater than 75% of Americans self-identify as Christian. Further it implies
religion and God is the sole source for morality, which contradicts a Federal
Bureau of Prisons survey in which inmates were asked about their religious
affiliation. The overwhelming majority
was Catholic and Protestant (together totaling roughly 75%), while only 0.21%
claimed they were atheists. So from
those statistics we can infer that when morality is derived from a wish to not
be punished for eternity as opposed to more humanist and secular reasons it is
not as effective after all.
I propose all our laws should be reevaluated
based on a secularist attitude and the separation of church and state, a term
coined in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danburry Baptist Association in
1802. I see no justifiable reason two
consenting adults cannot be married to whomever they choose, no logical
argument for skin color being a basis for segregation, gender being a limiting
factor for rights, or ancestry any foundation for slavery. I see no justifiable purpose for the laws
which restrict the sale of alcohol on Sunday before noon!