catholicsphere

There has been plenty of talk about the separation of church and state, but I’ll go ahead and add my thoughts on the matter anyway.

Many people have come to believe that separation of church and state means that one should not express his or her beliefs in the public square, or the voting booth, or, especially in legislative action. In essence, this boils down to saying that those who take public office must put their beliefs aside. But, that is impractical and certainly not what those who founded this country had in mind when they drafted and signed the Constitution of the United States of America. Too many today have tried to use the “establishment clause” to exclaim that voters and legislators cannot and should not allow their beliefs to inform the decision-making process. The irony to that? That’s their belief.

Of course, you may say that such a belief is not a religious belief, and therefore does not fit the profile of what is being spoken of. But, there is little difference between religious belief and other belief, so we should not isolate them as if they were significantly different.

The “establishment clause” however was designed to prevent a government run church, not to prevent the people — (yes, even though there’s a joke there, legislators are people too) — from expressing their beliefs and moral convictions in the public square and the voting booth. In fact, it is beliefs and moral convictions that work for the betterment of our society and form a framework for our laws, and things such as “common courtesy” (something which is becoming less “common” as more succomb to the idea that beliefs and morals are prohibited in the public square). If and when we have laws that either have a basis in, or are reflected in, religious beliefs, it does not mean that the state is “establishing” or “endorsing” a whole set of religious beliefs over another. Rather it says that this particular belief is agreed to be beneficial for the protection and preservation of society.

No matter the law that is enacted, it will come into conflict with someone’s beliefs, religious or otherwise. It endorses one belief over another. If we say that we cannot endorse a particular religious belief, then we must say that we cannot endorse any beliefs, since virtually all base themselves on a certain sense of morality that finds its deepest roots in religious belief.

We do not legislate “creedal” beliefs, such as “there is one God”. We legislate beliefs such as “do not commit murder”. We legislated things such as “do not commit adultery or fornication” (but we have lost the sense of offense at such things). In fact, most of us believe that something like infidelity is “criminal” enough to warrant divorce. Unfortunately, people have brushed aside the effects of such things on society, and we come up with things such as “no-fault divorce”, which may penalize the person that was not responsible for the things that led to the divorce (yet we’ll blame both parties in some way).

Relgious beliefs belong in the public square and they need to inform the law-making process, even if the religious beliefs themselves are not legislated. Without them, our society becomes something less than what it could be.