Should Governments Be Involved With Religion?

The first answer to this question from a biblical perspective is yes. From the earliest time, religion supported the ruler and thus the ruler supported religion. Such an arrangement seemed natural to the people from the beginning and those who made up the majority of any locality expected the government to support their religion. In those rare cases in which the government or the ruler converted to a new religion, inevitably the government forced a new religion on the people. Such an event occurred in Israel after the accession of David as King. Scripture does not record what occurred in clear terms, but we see in the pronouncements of the Yahwist a state interest. Certainly, we see a strong state interest in the Deuteronomist.

Up until the accession of David, the people of Israel believed that YHVH was the G-d of Israel. There were other gods in Egypt, among the Canaanites, in Chaldea, in Babylon, in Assyria, in Hatti and other countries. Everyone knew that YHVH was the son of El and that he was appointed to rule over Israel. Deuteronomy 32:9 confirms this fact. But after the accession of David, we see the government moving for centralized control of the state and as it did, it sought to control the religion as well. The people who worshiped YHVH as their King also worshiped Ba'al who claimed Kingship in Lebanon; Asherah, their sister; and El who is called Elyon, the Highest, and Shaddai, the Almighty. Slowly, in the time after David and up until the reign of Josiah, we see what is called conflation in which the nature, power, and interests of first El, then Ba'al and finally Asherah are attributed not to them but to YHVH. He becomes the only G-d, not just the G-d of Israel. This conflation supported the centralization of the government which eventually suppressed religious sites at Arad, Bethel, Shechem, Nob, and Samaria in favor of Jerusalem.

In America, there was no supreme G-d. Jehovah was certainly the G-d of the Protestants. The Lord was the G-d of the Catholics. YHVH was the G-d of the Jews. Manitou was the G-d of the Iroqois and other Great Lakes Indians. Allah of the Muslims was here as well. Also, there was the Great Architect of the Masons and the Deist G-d who was far away.

The Masonic point of view held sway in America. Every man should believe in a supreme deity and no man should discuss in public that belief. Such a position became the official position when the Constitution forbade the establishment of one G-d over another. No preference was made for any g-d and certainly the Founding Fathers had no truck with atheists as Masons considered atheists as morally degenerate. The Constitution does not establish a religion, but neither is it inimical to religion. However, even the Declaration of Independence, the most radical of documents, treasonous in the new nation, mentions Nature's G-d and gives sway to his right to know why a people would separate themselves from another people who have the same G-d.

The American Government is not supported by religion per se although Mormonism makes Americanism religious. Because many people, motivated no doubt by the same natural empathy as those early Hebrews, feel that the state and the church should uphold each other, want the American government to be controlled by religious opinions, we have seen an upsurge of religious involvement in matters of the state. Such a position is biblical. Such a position is well within the spectrum of what the people in America felt in the time when the Constitution was made. However, the founding fathers lived in States which had a state religion. The Constitution did not seek to disestablish any of the State religions and there is no indication that it did. In our unique system, the 10th Amendment reserved to the States the power to influence religion. I recognize that the Supreme Court has not dealt directly with this question and its rulings about the 10 Commandments on the courthouse steps have been inimical to this concept. But, the Supreme Court has a long history of usurping the 10th Amendment and needs to be re-educated. The current Sovereignty Movement is the first step towards re-establishing the limited sovereignty of the States and ultimately State Religion.

The situation is better now than it has been. When I first started practicing law, a new congregation, a non-denominational congregation, had to jump through many hoops to declare its existence for purposes of taxation. The congregation had to have a method of educating its clergy, had to have a process of ordaining its clergy, had to maintain strict records of giving, had to account for its money, and was generally overseen by the government. When the Servants of G-d Evangelical Mission was formed in 1981, it received some substantial support from one person and thus as that one person gave more than half of its support, the congregation was deemed a private foundation and subjected to significant public scrutiny and control. All of that has changed. Now, a group of people may ask the government for a federal employer identification number declaring that they are a religious congregation and the granting of that number is sufficient to exempt that new congregation from further scrutiny. They use that number to gain exemption from state sales tax and local sales tax. They use that number to open bank accounts which are not subject to federal review. While the Supreme Court was busy throwing the Ten Commandments out of every courthouse, but its own, Congress was reaffirming the separation of Church and State by removing the previous controls. Nonetheless, the actions at Waco and with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of LDS show the government still involved with the suppression of religion.

In a pluralistic society, morality must be decided by the Church. There is no room for 536 legislators in Washington and 9 Jurists on the Supreme Court to dictate what is religious and what is not. If we are to avoid the inherent dangers of a state church, dangers well documented in the histories of all the continents, we must allow a full separation of Church and State with a clear understanding that the State will neither encourage nor discourage belief, not just religion, but belief. The right to be an atheist must be supported so that those who are on the other side may exist. Plural marriage is biblical and must not be stopped. Bigamy laws are inherently Christian and date from Roman times, when Rome set the rules for religion. Morality must be controlled by the Church. At the same time, as the State steps back from Church control, the Church must step back from political actions such as the accumulation of guns and participation of the church in politics. Separation is complete only when both sides desist from attempting to control the other. All laws governing marriage must be abolished. Only the Church should support the institution of marriage. The State cannot support this institution without becoming involved in issues of who can perform marriage and who may be married. Let the Churches decide who they will marry and how many they will marry.

The State has a legitimate interest in registering and understanding the stated positions of every religious group, for the sole purpose of defining the boundary between the two. The State has a legitimate right to require the Church to stay out of politics. The State must desist from morality. The State must not adopt the morality of the majority and make it law. Few people would want to follow my strict rules of morality, forbidding the showing of any part of the body by either sex in public; forbidding the sale of pork in America; stripping the seafood industry of its right to exist; strictly governing the sale of meat and the treatment of animals; and numerous other acts which the Torah requires. Likewise, dancing, drinking, and gambling are not problems in same gender situations are always allowable, in my view. Religious prostitution should be exempt from state oversight. No one thinks that the biblical injunctions should be strictly enforced, but the State should not become involved with deciding which ones are allowable and which ones are not.

The legitimate concerns of the State are the maintenance of a system of order, the protection of the property rights, the guarantee of human rights, and support of parental rights. In doing those important acts, it may need to have a standing defense force, a foreign policy, and post and defense roads. The clear gifts of authority from the States to the Federal government should be respected. But, the States should begin a new dialogue not only with the Federal Government but with Religion to define their role in the declaration of morality. Some states with a strong history of religious tolerance like Rhode Island may support new religious ideas more easily than Maryland with a strong Catholic bent. People may move to those states where their religion is most free, like California for instance. But for the most part, the Federal government should not be involved with religion and the State government should become more involved with religion.

As in all things, these musings come from my background as both a religious person and a lawyer. Feel free to comment.