The Separation of the Religious Right and State.

Kevin Duewel's take on the wall between state and religion:

The Separation of Church and State is understood to prohibit the mingling of government in religious affairs, and likewise prohibits the interference of institutionalized religion mingling in government affairs. What is not understood is that the Separation of Church and State isn’t actually prohibitive: it’s doctrinal. The difference is that a doctrine can only be upheld by practice. A prohibition, on the other hand, is institutional, and enforceable. The Separation of Church and State, in other words, does not necessarily prohibit religious leaders from being elected to office, or organized religion from petitioning government.

The doctrine of the Separation of Church and State comes from a 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association by Thomas Jefferson, not from the Constitution, or from English common law — one of the bases of our written Constitution. An excerpt of the letter is as follows:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

For reference, the section of the First Amendment of the Constitution that concerns religion reads, “Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The First Amendment protects organized religion from government intervention; however, it does not shield government from the melding of organized religion — and I am not suggesting that government needs protection for that matter.

Jefferson’s notion of the Separation of Church and State, as we see in re-examining his words above, did not explicitly concern the involvement of men of faith in politics; it warned of the overreach of government in religious matters — and rightfully so. Alone the phrase “a wall of separation between Church & State” could be interpreted as a great wall, separating two volatile agents, or as a fortress, protecting the free practice of religion from the reach of the state. In the context of the letter and its addressee — the Danbury Baptist Association — it seems that Jefferson’s idea of the Separation of Church and State was more concerned with later than the former interpretation.

My point is that so long as men of faith keep their faith out of their politics, there is no conflict, neither constitutionally or in practice with the election of religious leaders to office. When men of faith make religion partisan or political, however, we have a problem. When religiousness becomes a partisan issue, one party becomes the political defender of the faith, and the other, the political opponent of the faith, and religious questions become policy questions — religion is politicized. Which is exactly what Thomas Jefferson warned of in his letter!

With an in-context re-reading of Thomas Jefferson’s letter, it becomes clear that Jefferson’s notion of a “wall of separation between Church & State”, means that ” religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God”. Religion is not supposed to be a matter between Man and his politics. With the country divided over social issues like Gay Marriage, Abortion, and prayer in school, somebody needs to remind the Religious Right that “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions”. What we need is not a separation of individual men of faith from office, but a separation of religious coalitions from state; i.e., a Separation of the Religious Right and State.