Yesterday I commented that no one has a good answer for where the line is between what a Church can insist on and what the State can insist on. That means that there is a constant set of arguments going on in this country between both sides. But, given the current healthcare debates, let me bring up a couple of subjects that may make you think a bit.
Here is a question for you. Where would you set the line between Church and State? Elective abortion is a major moral sin and must be legally and constitutionally stopped. This is not merely a matter of opinion nor is it a matter of religious imposition, but is built into the very core of both ethical and moral behavior. But, uhm, here is a small problem. Various Roman Catholics in the pro-life movement claim that several of the non-abortion birth control methods are abortifacients and must be banned. Almost all Protestants, Jews, and quite a few Eastern Orthodox, let alone Hindus, Buddhists, etc., would be quite upset were any of those various birth control methods to be banned by law.
But, this brings up a very difficult subject for everyone in the USA, whether religious or secular. Where is the line to be drawn? No, I am not a relativist. I do not believe that morality and ethics is relative and that they should be treated that way. But it is to say that freedom of religion is an uneasy compromise not only between religious and secular, but even between the various religions present in the USA. To a Roman Catholic, the refusal of various secular and religious groups to forbid those various methods might be seen as an approval of murder. More than that, it might mark both the religious groups and the secular groups as immoral people who are willing to countenance a horrendous sin to satisfy their immoral pleasure. Needless to say, the religious groups, including the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, would be in deep disagreement with that position.
In view of this, it is tempting to go to a purely Libertarian position. In fact, I have met many Christians who solve the problem by advocating a Libertarian position. But, that also is a problem. That position merely says that there is no relationship between Church and State. I suspect most of you, after due consideration, will agree that you really do not want to say that there is no relationship between Church and State. Would you really want to say that the Church has little to nothing to say to the State? And, that would not solve knotty problems like the current one. If a church-related organization runs a “secular” business, does the State have the right to add additional requirements to them? Libertarianism does not resolve the conflict between Church and State.
No, the only option that would resolve the conflict between Church and State is either a purely secular State or a purely religious State. I like neither option. As I have mentioned in other venues, a purely secular State inevitably ends up not simply in immorality but also, as George Orwell predicted in his book 1984, in a completely immoral oppression. A purely religious State inevitably ends up forbidding some religious practices. That is, there is no record of freedom of religion going together with a religious State other than a modern State such as Norway, Sweden, Greece, Denmark, England, etc. And, in those States, one of the Christian bodies has preferences and privileges that are more than some of the other Christian bodies.
So, what is left? Well, it seems to me that what is left is the continuing uneasy balance between Church and State that leads to regular and continual friction. The friction is not simply between Church and State but also between religious body and religious body. In fact, a major part of what prevents a resolution between the conflict of Church and State is precisely the ongoing and continual division between Christian and Christian. Since the resolution of that division is not likely to happen soon, I opt for the Bill of Rights and a guarantee that the uneasy compromise between Church and State will protect me from the secular impositions of the State or the doctrinal impositions of other religions who disagree with the doctrines of the Orthodox Church. It is a painful compromise.
This compromise means that we will see periodic and regular conflict between Church and State and between religions on what should be an appropriate public morality (an atheist would say ethics). But that is better than any of several other alternatives.
I too abhor the notion of either a purely secular state or religious state. This is precisely what is addressed in the free exercise clause. Our founding fathers did not want a religious state but recognized that the kind of state we have can only long endure where most citizens freely exercise faith. The church exercising her responsibility contributes to our society by making saints through the sacraments but also by making citizens through her moral teaching. This moral teaching is also in other religions because the Law is not peculiar to Christianity. I believe that what bound the founding fathers of our nation together was not Christianity but a common understanding of morality that was shaped by Christianity. There was a consensus on what constituted civil behavior and a recognition that our state would only long endure if we maintained that consensus and so the free exercise clause encouraging free exercise of religion for the sake of the state. We no longer have such a consensus and instead of emphasizing free exercise many publicly emphasize a wall of separation which in fact is not in the bill of rights. I believe that in the public square, I should leave Christ out of the verbal discussion and that I should argue from the constitution that says one of our inalienable rights is the right to life. Therefore, the state has a vested interesting in defining when life begins so that it can properly protect that right. Christians should not be about rights for their own sake. I am to die daily and instead of demanding my rights, I freely set them aside and take up responsibilities the chief of which is to love my neighbor and that means fight for my neighbor’s right to life. The birth control question is not in the constitution and I believe the Catholic church can teach her people in the way she chooses but should not be bringing that particular teaching into the public square except where the method is in fact an abortafacient such as the morning after people.
What we do not need in our time our these “Christian Action Counsels” which promote political action in the Name of Jesus. “My Kingdom is not of this world”, said Jesus. The Name of our Lord must be used properly and this to baptize and make disciples, populate heaven.
Actually, I would agree with about all of what you say here. GRIN.