Secularist Government

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 1^st 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!