Does a chat in church erode U.S. principles?
Posted on September 1, 2008
Unless there are two columnists of the same name, Kathleen Parker is normally a conservative commentator. A recent column by her about the Obama/McCain “debate” in pastor Rick Warren’s “Saddleback” church seems something of a departure from that however. She seems to think that it violated the Leftist doctrine of the “separation of church and state”.
There seems to have been a lot of reaction — both for and against — to the column so here’s an excerpt:
“At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister-no matter how beloved-is supremely wrong. It is also un-American….
The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state. The loser was America…
This is about higher principles that are compromised every time we pretend we’re not applying a religious test when we’re really applying a religious test.
There have been various objections to her claims but one that does not so far seem to have arisen is what I think is the most basic. There is NO separation of church and State mandated in the U.S. constitution. Try to find it if you think there is.
All that is mandated is: “”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. When that was written its meaning was perfectly clear. It was a reference to the fact that in England, the Church of England was at the time the “established” church. And that meant that the government paid its priests and supported it as the “right” or official religion.
So it is clear that the U.S. government must not pay clergy or sponsor any particular denomination but that is a long way from a complete separation of church and State. It is certainly clear that there is no prohibition on any clergy getting involved in politics. Clergy can talk themselves blue in the face but that won’t make their church “established”. So the government cannot support a particular church but a particular church can support the government — if it chooses to.
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don’t forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Church And State, History, Liberal Media/Bias, News, Politics As Usual, Revisionism, Secular Humanism, Socialism, religion
Trackback URL
Comments
2 Responses to “Does a chat in church erode U.S. principles?”
Leave a Reply
At the time that the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments were ratified, there were established churches for several states, notably the Congregationalist church in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
As time went on, these state churches lost their official status.
You know, it’s funny since I just did a post going back to what the context of that statement, “separation of church and state” meant.
I’m not familiar with Kathleen Parker and I don’t care in this case. She’s wrong. A careful look at history, text, and context reveals the details of what Jefferson meant when he said that to the Danbury Baptists.
That aside, this has nothing to do with church and state coming together except in the interest of free speech and open forum. So if she’s against anything, it appears as if she’s against that which, of course, would be bad.