In the 1960 presidential election, Richard Nixon’s Republican base warned the nation that if John F. Kennedy were to be elected the Pope would run the country. It was thought that because Kennedy was Catholic his first allegiance would be to the Pope. Oh how times have changed. Now the Republicans are invoking Catholic social teachings as the basis for their policy choices. Just recently Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) commented that his budget proposal was based upon the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Of course, there are several problems with Mr. Ryan’s use of subsidiarity the two most prominent being that he misunderstands subsidiarity and he has violated the separation between church and state.
Mr. Ryan is correct in suggesting that subsidiarity serves the basis of federalism, but wrong when he said that government is not supposed to help the poor because it conflicts with subsidiarity. To understand subsidiarity it would be helpful to quote encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno par. 79 (1931) from Pope Pius XI. “[I]t is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.” The principle of subsidiarity, then, allows the government to step in when other associations have failed to provide sufficient help to the members of the body social. When individuals and voluntary organizations fail to provide a proper order, the government may step in, but not before. Mr. Ryan’s position seems to be that the government can never step in. That is in direct contradiction to what Pope Pius XI wrote in 1931.
But this is one of the reasons why we have a separation between church and state; to prevent politicians from using religion for their political ends and distorting religious teachings for political gain. When politicians act as theologians we risk blurring the line between religion and politics. When church and state become one, dissent can be silenced through the power of the state and the state decides what is an acceptable religious view and what is not. Those who object to a particular policy can be silenced on the grounds that their policy preferences are blasphemous.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
The Constitution and Bill of Rights say nothing about separation of church and state.
The First Amendment says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....", while Article VI only notes, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The concept of separation stems from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association in January of 1802, wherein he first coined the phrase (and arbitrarily tacked it on to the end of the First Amendment's notation regarding Congress making no law,etc.) In his letter, Jefferson wrote, "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." (Emphasis added)
Lamentably, Jefferson's somewhat arrogant tinkering with the First has been,over the years, an importance beyond its significance and has unfortunately led to downright silliness, as in the banning of religious displays on religious holidays, the prohibition against school prayer, even when nondemoninational, etc.
And yet, the United States continues to emblazon on its coinage a childish avowal to our trust in a completely fictional character.
We would be more in keeping with Mr. Jefferson's personal admonishment if we were to inscribe "In The Tooth Fairy We Trust" on our money.
But of course, the US and its citizens have never been rational about religion...
2 - Frivolous D
The money quote:
"What this seems to suggest is that Republicans, at least those like Mr. Ryan, think the government should not interfere with religion but religion can interfere with government."
Perfect!
3 - Jet Gardner
From Thomas Jefferson: (1743-1826; author, Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom; 3rd U.S. President, 1801-1809):
"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."
"I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor."
"Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
"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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802.)
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
4 - Jet Gardner
No reference to any god is to be found in the body or in the amendments to the U.S. Constitution unless the most vague phrases are stretched completely out of context.
Article VI, Section 3, The Constitution of the United States:
The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
5 - Jet Gardner
If we glance back at our early history, the reasons for placing religious freedom in the First Amendment may become clearer. The quest for that freedom was one of the motives for emigration to America, but not just for those who wanted to be free to practice their own faith. A surprising majority of colonial Americans were not part of any religious community. Even in New England, research shows, not more than one person in seven was a church member. It was one in fifteen in the middle colonies and fewer still in the South, according to the historian Richard Hofstadter.
6 - Jet Gardner
President Andrew Jackson did refuse to order a national day of prayer during a cholera epidemic (1832).
7 - Jet Gardner
Abraham Lincoln, 16th U. S. President and a founder of the republican party
"When the Know-Nothings get control, it [the Declaration of Independence] will read: "All men are created equal except negroes, foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer immigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty--to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
8 - Dr Dreadful
The constitutional integration of a church and a state is precisely what is meant by the phrase "establishment of religion", so Clavos is simply wrong there.
The First Amendment was written to distance the US Constitution from that of the UK, which does have a state religion (but where, oddly enough, it rarely seems to be an issue); similarly, Article VI was also a reaction to UK law, which states that the head of state (the monarch) cannot be a Catholic - or marry one.
As far as Ryan and co. are concerned, they do indeed seem to be absolutely fine with the Catholic Church interfering in government - as long as it suits them. We all witnessed the dancing in the streets that took place when the bishops' conference decided to have a grumble about the Obamacare contraception mandate. Yet when that very same conference, and a couple of other groups of Catholic clergy, criticized the Ryan budget recently, they couldn't throw their toys out of the pram fast enough.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
As an atheist, you of all people should be on the front lines defending the separation of church and state.
10 - Jet Gardner
Can you imagine what would happen if Barack Hussein Obama made any of the following statements?
From: Ulysses S. Grant, 18th U.S. President [1869-1877]
In a speech to the Army of the Tennessee, Des Moines, Iowa, 1875 he said:
"Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither the state nor nation, or both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separated."
Grant's message to Congress, December 7, 1875; Congressional Record, Vol. 4, part 7, page 175:
"I would call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land before the close of the Nineteenth century. It is the acquisition of vast amounts of untaxed church property... In a growing country, where real estate enhances so rapidly with time as in the United States, there is scarcely a limit to the wealth that may be acquired by corporations, religious or otherwise, if allowed to retain real estate without taxation. The contemplation of so vast a property as here alluded to, without taxation, may lead to sequestration without constitutional authority, and through blood. I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation."
-------------
From Rutherford B. Hayes, 19th U. S. President [1877-1881
"We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion suffer by all such interference."
-------------
From Theodore Roosevelt, 26th U. S. President [1901-1909]
"Because we are unqualifiedly and without reservation against any system of denominational schools, maintained by the adherents of any creed with the help of state aid, therefore, we as strenuously insist that the public schools shall be free from sectarian influences, and, above all, free from any attitude of hostility to the adherents of any particular creed."
-------------
From Warren G. Harding, 29th U. S. President [1921-1923]
In the experiences of a year of the Presidency, there has come to me no other such unwelcome impression as the manifest religious intolerance which exists among many of our citizens. I hold it to be a menace to the very liberties we boast and cherish."
-------------
From Alfred E. Smith, Governor of New York and Democratic candidate for President in 1928
"I believe in absolute freedom of conscience for all men and equality of all churches, all sects, and all beliefs before the law as a matter of right and not as a matter of favor. I believe in the absolute separation of church and state and in the strict enforcement of the Constitution that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I believe that no tribunal of any church has any power to make any decree of any force in the law of the land, other than to establish the status of its own communicants within its own church."
-------------
(John F. Kennedy, 35th U.S. President and a devout Catholic [1961-1963]
"It is my firm belief that there should be separation of church and state in the United States--that is, that both church and state should be free to operate, without interference from each other in their respective areas of jurisdiction. We live in a liberal, democratic society which embraces wide varieties of belief and disbelief. There is no doubt in my mind that the pluralism which has developed under our Constitution, providing as it does a framework within which diverse opinions can exist side by side and by their interaction enrich the whole, is the most ideal system yet devised by man. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances which would lead me to a different conclusion." (Santorum just fainted again)
"I believe in an America where the separation of Church and State is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President 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."
--------------
Jimmy Carter, 39th U. S. President 1977-1981
"I believe in the separation of church and state and would not use my authority to violate this principle in any way."
11 - Zingzing
Clavos seems to only be against not allowing religious displays in public/state circumstances. That's fine. We should be able to put up displays of personal beliefs in those areas, as long as everyone else can as well. Separation of church and state doesn't mean religion is barred, it means that one religion does not have a monopoly. It shouldn't be a bare light pole, or a light pole with one advertisement on it, it should be a light pole with as many advertisements as can fit, and no one can say you can't stick a flyer on that light pole. That that light pole isn't reflective of the diversity within the community is the community's problem.
I think that's fair. If the light pole doesn't include you, stick a flyer on it. Or paint 666 on the baby Jesus.
12 - Zingzing
That said, there are certain areas of public life where religion should fuck off. But there are also certain areas where common sense should prevail and stupid religious beliefs should be allowed. If it harms no other, fine. If it harms another in any way, no. That's fair, right?
13 - Jet Gardner
From the United States Court system and the Supreme Court:
Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate... The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion. (U. S. Supreme Court, Melvin v. Easley, 1860)
Supreme Court Justice Rutledge stated in 1947 that the First Amendment was not designed merely to prohibit governmental imposition of a religion; it was designed to create "a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority...."
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government, can openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." (Justice Hugo Black, U. S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947
It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America... By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of Church and State. These people knew, some of them from bitter personal experience, that one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government's placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious service.... The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say - that the people's religions must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office. (Justice Hugo Black, U. S. Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, 1962 decision on school prayer
14 - Clavos
As an atheist, you of all people should be on the front lines defending the separation of church and state.
I am Glenn.
See zing's #12...
Did you not read the part of my comment in which I ridicule the nation's motto?
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Yes, I did - yet for all the strength of your disbelief, you still choose to be on the side of those who share your conservatism, but who also push to throw doubt on evolution in our schools, and who perennially decry the liberals' so-called war on "Christianity", yet submit bill after bill expanding the authority of the state over women's wombs.
You're on the wrong side, friend. The extent to which the Republican party has gone looney-tunes should be a clarion wake-up call to you that something is rotten in the state of Red, that maybe you should consider whether it's really a good idea to share the political leanings of the residents of the lunatic asylum now that you can see them for what they are.
16 - Clavos
You're on the wrong side, friend
In your opinion, perhaps.
maybe you should consider whether it's really a good idea to share the political leanings of the residents of the lunatic asylum. ..
Hmm. I wonder who's crazy and who isn't... But in any case, hanging with the crazy people is an upgrade from the rest.
Don't forget I'm a conservative. Ergo, I'm crazy, right?
17 - Clavos
Oh, and Glenn:
I support nothing. My original post on this thread merely pointed out that there is no "separation of church and state" wording in the constitution; nothing else, and certainly no support.
18 - Baronius
"There is no doubt that many people’s political views are informed by their religion."
Exactly. Ryan is explaining how his political views are informed by his religion. That doesn't mean he wants to compel people to practice his religion. He's explaining the principles that underlie his thinking.
Most of American history has been motivated by underlying religious principles. The various groups who established the colonies were fleeing persecution, often religious. The impulse to convert the Indian, to free the slave, to outlaw alcohol, to fight the Communist, to promote civil rights and feed the hungry, all of that started in religious communities and underlied the thinking of the majority. Today, President Obama cites the Christian concern for the poor in defending his policies.
None of those things compel religious belief. An Objectivist can support the Ryan plan because he thinks that it will support property rights. A Muslim can support the war in Afghanistan because he believes it is strategically important. An anti-Muslim can support the war in Afghanistan because he believes it is strategically important. It doesn't matter why. And that's the key. A person can support legislation without agreeing with all of the first principles of the bill's sponsors.
19 - Frivolous D
Clavos,
Like it or not, the actual words of the constitution mean exactly what SCOTUS says it means. And so far, they've been saying it means "separation of church and state."
Since Kyle is a constitutional scholar, now would be a great time to chime in.
20 - Dr Dreadful
My original post on this thread merely pointed out that there is no "separation of church and state" wording in the constitution
And that's the problem. Because it doesn't say the specific words "separation of church and state" (even though that's exactly what it means), religious conservatives like to pretend that there was no such intent.
21 - Baronius
"Mr. Ryan is correct in suggesting that subsidiarity serves the basis of federalism, but wrong when he said that government is not supposed to help the poor because it conflicts with subsidiarity."
When did Ryan say that?
22 - Dr Dreadful
In fairness, it should be pointed out that the First Amendment refers only to the federal legislature, and to making laws "regarding" Establishment. This is because, at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted, a number of states did have official religions: the federal government was thereby undertaking not to interfere in these Establishment laws.
So, in theory, there's nothing to prevent, say, Mississippi from adopting Southern Baptism as its official state religion. In practice, however, it would come a cropper against the Supremacy Clause quicker than you could say "Our Father".
23 - Baronius
Dread - People on both sides of the aisle interpret the First Amendment for their own advantage. This article interprets it in a way that the Founders wouldn't have agreed with. So do some of those who downplay the separation of church and state. But pointing out that the phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution is by no means proof of a twisted agenda, any more than using the phrase to describe the Founders' intent is proof of a twisted agenda.
By conflating the rare evangelical theocrat with the mainstream conservative, you find yourself arguing odd things - like Clavos being sympathetic to religion. What would make more sense is to enumerate the different understandings of the American church/state vision, expose the ones that are clearly wrong, and debate among the ones remaining.
24 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius: When did Ryan say that?
He said it in his CBN interview:
"[The principles of subsidiarity] are very very important, and the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenants [sic] of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life. Help people get out of poverty out onto life of independence."
(To be fair, Kyle did say that this is just his impression of Ryan's meaning.)
Ryan is making two completely false assumptions: that government assistance programs keep people in poverty, and that the poor can only better their situation if the government backs away. Having worked for many years on and with a number of welfare programs, I am here to tell you that many of them are specifically designed to help people escape the poverty trap - and that they work.
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
"rare evangelical theocrat"????
Perhaps the theocrats themselves are rare, but the people who support them are NOT rare; otherwise, people like Jerry Falwell would never have had such influence, nor would Pat Robertson or Mike Huckabee. It would be more accurate to say that while evangelicals do not comprise the majority of the Republican party, they certainly wield influence significantly out of proportion with their numbers. This is particularly true in the Republican power base of the South where a certain Mormon presidential candidate lost several states to those who were more, um, palatable to the residents of the Bible Belt.