By Mary Hill
This issue recently made the news again when in unusual move House Republicans and Democrats came together on a bill to fund restoration grants to religious agencies and churches damaged by Hurricane Sandy.
The unusual bi-partisan bill passed by a vote of 354 to 72 which lead to an oped in the New York Times on March 5 decrying that House Representatives had gone too far and trampled on the Constitutional provision of the separation of church and state. The opinion article stated, “that a Hurricane Sandy exception to pay for the rebuilding of damaged houses of worship” violates the First Amendment. They even called for the Senate to let the provision die.
This latest argument over the “separation of church and state” is nothing new. Pundits on both sides have been arguing over the issue since the landmark case which barred religious prayer in public schools.
What is new, however, is that since then the argument has moved from the school house and public arena into the church itself. Proponents for the separation of church and state argue that it means that even church religious leaders are not allowed to speak on public campaign issues from the pulpit. If they do so, they jeopardize their churches’ tax exempt status.
I believe that proponents for separation of church and state go too far in this argument and trump on the free speech rights of ministers of all religions. I also disagree that special funding for all houses of worship to rebuild is a violation of the idea of separation of church and state. Some of the worship centers are considered historic sites in their communities and as such should be preserved for public enjoyment.
Nowhere in the constitution is the words “separation of church and state” mentioned. The First Amendment just states that Congress shall make no laws that abridge the right of freedom of religion. No one’s right to freedom of religion is abridged by pastors speaking their mind to their like-minded congregations about election politics or any political issue for that matter. Nor is the freedom abridged by exempting churches and all charities from taxes. Nor is the freedom abridged by helping all religious organizations recover from a major natural disaster.
This issue is not going to be solved by my blogging about it. It has been around for decades. I, however, just wish to propose another viewpoint on it. No matter which side of the issue you are on, I think that both sides need to respect each others’ points of view. The protection of the freedoms of everyone should be our yardstick in deciding major issues related to the First Amendment.
If you would like to know more about the issues from all sides you can visit the wesites of the following organizations:
- Americans United for the Separation Of Church and State http://www.au.org/
- The Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life — http://www.pewforum.org/Topics/Issues/Church-State-Law/
- Search for Clarity and Truth Project http://www.search4clarity.com/separation-between-church-and-state/perspective/conservative
- Alliance Defending Freedom http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/
- Liberty Counsel http://www.lc.org/
Some things should remain separate, but I can see where the whole separation of church and state can be taken too far.
A to Z Participant
Cherie Reich – Author and Surrounded by Books Reviews
Government should stay out of churches. But people should not be forced to be silent in their churches because government has made a law saying so. where is the freedom of religion and right to free speech when you ban pastors from voicing their opinions about elections from the pulpit? I feel that is more government interference and creating laws that violate the free speech and religious rights of ministers of all religions. Thanks for everyone’s great comments. Will be tackling the d and e this weekend to catch up. Had to take my husband to doctor Friday and have fallen behind.
Serendipity 🙂 Or… well, nothing about this is “happy”, is it? But still. I just had an argument with an acquaintance regarding “protection of freedoms for everyone”. People seem to think that honoring *my* freedom will somehow impair *yours*. Why? Your freedom, my freedom–everyone’s deserves the same respect, doesn’t it? Why would respecting my rights deny you yours? Ah–maybe because those “rights” (the “right” to impose your beliefs on me, for example) weren’t really rights at all? It’s a complex situation in any context.
Found you via A-Z, and I’ll definitely be back for more 🙂 Happy weekend!
So true. But in churches where all agree why does a pastor have to sensor himself? If you do not believe the same as I that is fine. I have no problem with how others choose to believe that is their right. If you don’t agree you are welcome to disagree. That is what is great about America. But in a church where more than 99 percent want to be there and love and respect the leadership of their pastor why does he have to censor his right to speak freely? Most people only choose churches that align with their particular belief system. If you don’t agree with church a down the street there is a church b or c that will be more in align with your beliefs. We are free to worship where we want or not worship at all. That is what freedom off religion means.
PS thanks for your great comments. Hope you will come back.
I think that church and state should always be separate, but that’s easy for the likes of me to say 🙂
Great post! Thank you for a great C!! I look forward to reading more of you A to Z posts.
Connie #133
A to Z Challenge.
Peanut Butter and Whine
Interesting post. Good luck with the rest of the alphabet