Matthew Miano Professor Buracker Intro to the New Testament 2 November 2012 Faith and Government in America One

of the many issues facing Americans today is the relationship between religion and government and their mutual influence on public policy. Separation of church and state is one of the core tenants of the United States that dates back to the Puritans settling America in search of freedom from the Church of England. More than a century later, our Founding Fathers crafted our Constitution which laid out the rights of the American citizens; its first amendment dealing with religious freedom and the government not allowed prohibiting it. Today the populace of this country is incredibly diverse, with different peopoel having different religious backgrounds, and some having none at all. Now many Americans fear this country may become a theocracy under a Republican leadership in the government. They feel abortion will be outlawed, people denied contraceptives, banning gay marriage, etc. Alternatively, others fear the country may become heavily secularized by the government under the Democrats, such as allowing marriage between homosexuals, banning Christmas trees in public, removing under God from the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. Both groups of people have their own reservations about religion and government in collusion, so where do faith and government stand? Both concepts can in fact be complimentary toward each other. A balance of the two can exist where people of all denominations and faiths, religious or atheistic, can benefit and be free.

Thus, faith and government can co-exist in American society. In order to set the stage for exploring the positive relationship between the two concepts, historical context of religion and religious liberty in America must be established. In the 18th century, the Founding Fathers were more than just representatives of their colonies. They were highly educated men from various backgrounds and careers[brit]. More importantly, they were incredibly diverse in faith, ranging from Congregationalist to Lutheran to Roman Catholic (Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists, not atheists as some scholars assert)[ML]. They believed inalienable, fundamental rights should not come from man but from a higher being, so man would not be able to deny these rights to others.(ML) However, after America gained independence from England, there was much religious tension in the newly formed country: [States] continued to promote religion with taxes and land grants. Some states required officials to affirm their allegiance to a particular religion or religious sect by way of an oath. . . and some continued to discriminate against certain religions. But when they bound themselves to the Declarations principles, they bound themselves to, among other things, religious liberty. (Levin, 28) The Founders recognized this to be very problematic for America. As a result, when the Constitution was being crafted, the Framers wrote the First Amendment with great pragmatism in regards to the concept of the separation of church and state. They were in great opposition to a national religion and believed any type of theocracy would ultimately destroy religious liberty and liberty altogether. At the same time, they believed in religious liberty and that the government cannot prohibit it. The Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution could have easily created

a theocratic government, but they did not. They understood the need for religious liberty in a country that fought for freedom years earlier, in a country where individuals would not be persecuted by the government for their religious beliefs. While direct religious persecution may not be a problem today, the infringement on peoples religious liberty can be considered indirect, with certain policies passed by the United States government affecting each and every American. It is not uncommon to see legislation passed that is influenced by a politicians religious beliefs, especially on matters like abortion and gay marriage. Some of these policies, however, are not as concrete, and while they are wellintentioned, can have unprecedented consequences. Take for example the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, which was intended to provide affordable health insurance for all Americans. According to the Washington Post, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) planned to sue the federal government over certain provisions in Obamacare, such as subsidized abortions and mandating religious hospitals and institutions provide some form of contraceptive care. They claim it violates their religious freedom because the statutes of Obamacare mandate religious institutions to do what their religion commands them not to do; in this case, going against the Catholic belief of the life of the unborn being protected. As a result, this violates the First Amendment of the Constitution involving the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Here, the federal government is mandating private religious institutions (hospitals, specifically) deviate away from their beliefs to abide by federal law; their religious liberty is violated in turn. Another example of politicians legislating laws influenced by religion is gay marriage. This is a polarizing issue that has divided Americans for years. Historically, the endorsement of a

federal ban on gay marriage has often been viewed by supporters of gay marriage as a progression to a more theocratic government by Christian politicians [Capitol law review journal]. Obviously this would seem to violate the principle of the separation of church and state as a result. But is there a federal ban on gay marriage? Not necessarily. Although The Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Clinton Administration in the 1990s defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, it does not prevent the states from legalizing civil unions between homosexuals; this is legal under the Tenth Amendment. That is not to say the law is sound, since it does prevent homosexual couples the same marital benefits as heterosexual couples; DOMA can be considered unconstitutional in this regard, but pending judicial review, it may or may not be a violation of the separation of church and state.

Annotated Bibliography "The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity." Encyclopdia Britannica. Encyclopdia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopdia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 05 Oct. 2012. Levin, Mark R. Liberty and Tyranny. New York: Threshold Editions, 2009. Strasser, Mark. Some Observations about Doma, Marriages, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships. Capital University Law Review 30 Cap. U. L. Rev. (2002): 363-367. Cain, Patricia, A. Federal Tax Consequences of Civil Unions. Capital University Law Review 30 Cap. U. L. Rev. (2002): 387-393.

Mott, Stephen Charles. "The Politics Of Jesus" And Our Responsibilities." Reformed Journal 26.2 (1976): 7-10. 5 Oct. 2012.