RELIGION AND GOVERNMENTS

This is not to be considered a commentary on the two Council races that will in essence be decided by the primary election. In the first week of June I intend to post my opinion on the merits and demerits of the four candidates on the Monday the week before the election. Until then what I have to post today should not be taken as a negative comment about Rev. Tracy Brown.

I do have an inherent distrust for any religious leader, no matter what his/hers faith, holding an elective government office.

Although not forbidden by law there is an ethical question of bypassing the “separation of Church and State concept” Why? It is extremely possible that the individual’s deep convictions can influence his actions in office.

Most of the original 13 colonies were founded by 15 and 16 century fugitives from the restrictive national religions which persecuted non followers. Almost all had official “state” religions often disenfranchising non believers. One exception was Virginia with its Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison.

All feared the establishment of a national religion thus; The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Furthermore Article VI of the Constitution states “no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification for any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Yet today that is being raised as an issue in the Presidential race as it was when JFK was running.

Because of fear of the Catholic Church’s influence on a President John F. Kennedy, in his Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on 12 September 1960, addressed the question directly, saying,”

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. [...] I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.”

In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries” (bold face mine)

Both Jefferson and Madison wrote in support of separation of State and religion as follows: President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter wrote;

"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.

Madison contended during the discussion about the 1^st Amendment “Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it is subject to that of the Legislative Body." Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States”

Yet today there is a continuous attack on these basic principles especially from the Religious Right as championed by Santorum” during his aborted campaign for the Republican nomination who would impose their will on all of us.

Additionally no matter what the faith we are always being exposed to sermons from the pulpit in attempts to influence us in political matters.

Despite the position taken by the Catholic Church according to Zachary R. Calo (Professor University of Virginia/ University of Pennsylvania) who in discussing Vatican II (1965) wrote “Dignitatis declared that a person should not be “forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”

“the right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus is to become a civil right.” The Bishops have been outspoken in their objections to birth control and abortion.(boldface mine)

They stand not alone since many fundamentalist leaders of diverse religions have expressed similar convictions for their congregants to enact.

It would under such circumstances be difficult to find any lay person of deep religious convictions to take a “Kennedy” stance. It would be almost impossible for a Minister. Priest, Orthodox Rabbi or an Imam at any level of government to be influenced by his religious convictions.

That is why I would have difficulty voting for any religious leader. It has little to do with the person’s qualifications and in cases where I consider the opposing candidate to be wrong for the office I would keep an open mind before casting my ballot.

Once again I apologize for the change in font sizes which occur. The entire document in word is written in Veranda 14 yet does not transpose that way. any suggestions?