Acton Institute PowerBlogBy Tony Oleck
As the race for the 2012 party nominations for president heats up, the question of religion and its place in politics surfaces yet again. Whether the controversy is over mosques or Mormonism, religion permeates much of todayâ€™s political talk, despite various pleas for a â€œseparation of church and stateâ€ from both the secular and religious worlds. But what does the separation of church and state truly mean?
While many use the phrase to refer to a complete isolation of religion from politics, history tells us that the most famous advocate of this principle in America, Thomas Jefferson, may have had a different idea of what a â€œwall of separation between church and stateâ€ really meant. In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson writes:
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. . . I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should â€œmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,â€ thus building a wall of separation between church & state.
What Jefferson sought to prevent was state intervention into religious affairs. And the separation of church and state, as our founding fathers understood the phrase, meant the avoidance of a church-state. A church that acts as or controls the state is not in accordance with Christâ€™s message, but a church that informs the state is. If the role of the state is to allow for and to promote the freedom and well-being of its citizens, then it has only to benefit from the Christian understandings of truth, freedom and Godâ€™s undying love for the world.
I am reminded of something a former English teacher once told me about religion and politics. â€œItâ€™s like when I go to get my car fixed,â€ he said, â€œI donâ€™t determine which mechanic to go to by what religion he practices.â€ While I would agree, I tend to take the leadership and future of my country a little bit more seriously than whether or not my radio works. Granted, a candidate should never be excluded from office for solely religious purposes, but a Christian nevertheless need not feel ashamed for supporting a particular candidate because of his or her religiously-based position on certain social issues.
Why did our founding fathers describe man as â€œbeing endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rightsâ€? And why were the words â€œIn God We Trustâ€ and â€œOne Nation under Godâ€ added eventually to our currency and our pledge of allegiance, respectively? It was because they realized that only in recognizing man as having been created in Godâ€™s own image as a species set apart could America grow and prosper. It was this common Christian heritage that allowed the state to grow in the first place. While not all of Americaâ€™s founding fathers were necessarily practicing Christians, they understood that for the American experiment to succeed it must at the very least be founded on Christian principles; on both faith and reason. They understood the transformative nature of Christâ€™s teachings and the dignity and truth which they expounded to human beings.
This is not to say, of course, that the United States only has room for Christianity as a system of belief. Religious freedom is a necessary condition for a just and prosperous society. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his World Day of Peace address this past New Yearâ€™s, â€œWhere religious freedom is acknowledged the dignity of the human person is respected at its roots and through a sincere search for truth and good, moral conscience and institutions are strengthened. For this religious freedom is a privileged path to peace.â€
But while religious freedom is necessary for peace, it is never an excuse for inaction. Christians often feel the need to separate their religious beliefs from their political views so as not to â€œimposeâ€ their beliefs on others, but this separation is contrary to the Gospel message. Because acceptance of the Gospel and the subsequent sharing of the Gospel go hand-in-hand, a Christian who is content to confine his faith to the walls of his own home may be a Christian by name, but he is an atheist by practice.
Christianity is more than a moral code. It is by its nature both transformative and truth-seeking. And if Christianity is meant to transform our lives and to expound truth (whether that truth is culturally attractive or not), then it becomes necessary that we allow our faith to inform our politics. It offers the lens of a true enlightenment, through which we can understand the meaning and purpose of political action in the first place.