The church and the state: two immensely powerful bodies. In America these two entities are meant to be separated absolutely. Yet, no matter how much we might try, religion always makes its way into the public sphere. What is religion’s actual influence on our public discourse and institutions? Does religion affect the government in an improper way? I will attempt to tackle these questions throughout my posts, and I will mainly focus on “current” events. However, in this introduction I will define and distinguish many of the terms that will appear in later posts, and I will provide a brief reasoning as to the legal basis for the separation.
There are countless ways to describe the religiosity of a person, however the most important terms need clear definitions. If I were to ignore this step, we could encounter the proverbial “passing ships in the night” disaster, where arguments don’t ever meet each other because they are arguing about separate topics. Many of these terms are different points on the same spectrum, so if one mixes up the different spectrums, the terms lose their meanings.
The first spectrum is that of religious belief, not knowledge. On one end there are the theists. All believers who posit an interventionist God are theists. All pagans, Christians, Jews, and Muslims hold theistic beliefs. They believe in a God that acts in the world—answering prayers or sending a son to die on the cross for instance. Deism is on the same spectrum. Deists hold the belief that a supernatural being created the universe, but they do not believe that that being intervenes in the world. The image often used is that of a clockmaker who builds the machine and lets it run. There are no offshoots of deism, because to suggest anything more about the being would remove it from the non-interventionist position. The final main point on this spectrum is atheism, which Merriam-Webster defines as, “A disbelief in the existence of God.” I use the actual definition for a specific reason: atheism does not say that there is no God, It claims that there is no reason to believe in a God. It remains open to evidence.
There is another spectrum, which focuses on knowledge rather than belief. Agnosticism is the main point on this spectrum. If one asks, “Is there a God?” and the person responds, “I don’t know,” then he takes on the position of agnosticism. Agnosticism does not prevent or lead to any position on the belief spectrum. It is perfectly logical to say, “I don’t know for sure if there is a god or not, (agnosticism) but I believe that there is (theism/deism)” The reverse could then also be true, where agnosticism can be paired with atheism. Agnosticism is not a synonym for atheism, nor does it necessarily lead to that position.
There must be more distinctions with regard to doctrine. Regardless of whatever set of ideas that a theist believes in, those beliefs make claims. Islam states that Muhammad is God’s last prophet, and that there are five pillars which every believer must partake in. Christianity claims that Jesus died on the cross and that salvation lies with him. Of course there are always different sects which have different beliefs within all religions, but as a theist, there are ways to act “badly,” which is to say contrary to teaching. If one believes in the cycles which Jainism posits but then acts violently, one can be said to be a “bad” Jain. This does not apply to atheism. Atheism has no corollary beliefs. As an atheist, you can be a mass murder or a wonderful philanthropist. The only way to be a “bad” atheist is to believe in a God, which would not make you a bad atheist but rather a theist or deist.
Now that there are clear explanations for terms that will be central to the posts, we can move onto the constitutional question over the intersection of religion with government in the United States. The founding document of our country, The Constitution is excessively clear with regard to religion. It states, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” One does not need to be a Christian to serve in our government.
However, this is not the only statement the Constitution makes with regard to religion. The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This clearly and unambiguously states that the religious institutions must remain out of the government and vice versa. Legislators can use their faith as a compass to make judgments, but they may not say that “policy x” acts against my religion and therefore must not be done. Thomas Jefferson, a deist and possibly an atheist, makes this point even more clearly in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he writes that the First Amendment, “…thus build[s] a wall of separation between Church and State.” The government will neither help nor hinder the workings of religious intuitions in America, unless of course those institutions violate other laws.
Now that I have defined and explained the terms that will be essential to this blog and the legal relationships between religion and government, I feel that I can now dive into the modern issues which surround this discussion. My goal in this blog is not to convince readers that certain views of religion are correct or incorrect. Instead, I wish to deconstruct current events and issues in the light of the supreme law of the land.
Sources:
http://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
awp5357 says
Yes absolutely! Too many people forget that the people who created this country also made it clear that there should be no national religion. This country was built upon the concept of freedom of religion and should stay that way. A politician can absolutely hold certain beliefs, but those beliefs should not be used to sway voters.
Matthew Osche says
Really good topic to write about. This is most certainly relevant to all of us in this class. A lot of people that write blogs like this will simply delve into the arguments right off the bat without any prior exposition, leaving readers who don’t know much about the topic almost completely in the dark and bogged down by unfamiliar terms or names. I like the fact that you started this one off with definitions of separate religious terms and hope that you will continue to start your blogs off like such so as not to leave me, the uninformed but curious reader, into a completely stifled state. Nice work on this one!
ack5325 says
Seeing this topic is new and refreshing. You’re keeping a very neutral position, which is fairly essential for such a charged topic. I can’t wait to see how you, “…deconstruct current events and issues in the light of the supreme law of the land.”
Kelsy says
I really like this topic for your civic issue blog. I definitely think it is something to be discussed. I also really like your voice through this post. You sound like you know what you are talking about which makes me want to continue reading. I was unaware of the separations between agnosticism, deism, and atheism. I am excited to continue reading your posts.
mtl5221 says
I’m very interested in your topic and can’t wait to see where you go with it. One line from your entry that stood out to me was “The only way to be a “bad” atheist is to believe in a God, which would not make you a bad atheist but rather a theist or deist.” I once had a teacher that used those exact same words to describe Atheism, and it is a paradox that I have given much thought. Although Atheists don’t ascribe to a belief in a certain “god” I would still venture to say that they hold some type of “moral code” to be true… which is very interesting. So maybe being a “bad Atheist” is one that goes against his own personal moral code? But that seems far to relative and variant from person to person to have much meaning at all…
mfe5053 says
You truly are an English major! Not only is your topic very interesting but also you write in a very elegant way that made reading your blog post a great experience. I am not a very political person although I recently have trying to educate myself a little more on the topic, so I feel like your blog will actually give me some knowledge that I don’t have. I think your topic is very unique and takes a fresh and open state of mind to analyze. Good job!