Church and State

I thought I would post some clarifications on my stance on church and state and the separations thereof. I'm not one of those red staters that think we need to arm every child with a bible and a burning conviction to win the heathens to Jesus. Nor am I a blue stater who feels that even mentioning God somehow interferes with my civil liberties. I think we should allow people to worship, and yes expose other people to their religion, even if that means letting a holy roller set up a voluntary bible distribution desk on school property. However, by the same token, I also feel that we shouldn't allow that same school to hold a school function where they are told to prefer one religion over another, or that all religions are bad, or some such. The difference in this? The former is choice, the latter is coercion. Let's look just a minute at why there is even a church and state separation after all.


The Pilgrims (you know, those Puritan folk from England, Plymouth Rock, Thanksgiving and all that) were condemned in their own country for their religious beliefs. They came to the new world to escape the political persecution they received in their home country (oddly enough, the Puritans were some of the most religiously intolerant people on the block. When they were in power after the English Civil War, they were some of the most vigorous people in stamping out other religions invading on their own). The same thing goes for Lord Baltimore and the Catholics in Maryland (and the Quakers in Pennsylvania and so on. In fact, most of the northern colonies were established as religious havens).


These people grew up in an era of government sponsored religious persecution and intolerance. So when they fought to create an independent state from England, one of their first orders of business was to create a government that would not endorse one specific religion over any others. Hence the Freedom of Religion inclusion in the first Amendment. Further, they drafted language to state that government will be free of religious influence. All of this was to insure that they could worship peacefully without fear of persecution.


Nowhere is there any indication that our "founding fathers" ever intended to keep any religious ideas out of schools or government. No, what they wanted to make sure of was that those schools weren't espousing one brand of religion over another. Or that the federal government would suddenly taken up Buddhism and make everyone convert or die.

There is a world of difference between saying "we don't mind if you bring ideas into our schools" and "we want our school children to follow this religious doctrine". Just because I listen to those Jehovah's Witness ladies that come to the house every Friday morning doesn't mean that I'm endorsing their religion (I'm too nice to scream at them and I don't want to deal with the trouble I would get in if I answered the door stark naked). I'm simply allowing them to explain their religion. There is nothing wrong with giving someone the opportunity to volunteer information about something they are passionate about, religion included. Even if that means they are handing out bibles to kids at the lunch lines. The problem would be, and this is where the idea of church and state needs to be separated, if the school MADE those children take the bibles. Entirely different scenario there.

Hmm, not much clarity in that is there? Well, it's a murky issue. You've got people who scream because little Johnny wants to pray during class but whole-heartedly approve of the President swearing in on the bible. Personally, I would let little Johnny pray and scream my head off at Dubya, but that's just me.