Not long ago, Wayfarer expressed concern that gay marriage proponents might end up wanting to force their beliefs on churches that didn't agree with them:

"In Canada it is already a crime for some one preach against homosexuality.  How soon, before it happens in the US.  Perhaps in the future, it will be a crime for clergy to refuse to bless same sex marriages."

Some time ago I had occasion to opine on a possible real-life case.  Here is what I wrote on my sister site regarding a situation resembling what he described:

________________________

Wall of Separation Must Be Two-Way -- Both Ways

No, the title isn't redundant.

According to a Courier Post editorial, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a local Methodist church must allow a same-sex civil union to take place on its property.

In principle, this should never be.  In the same way that governments must fulfill their still largely unfulfilled obligation to recognize same-sex marriage ceremonies performed by churches who deem them sacred and legitimate, a church that opposes same-sex marriage must have it's beliefs and rights respected as well.

No church -- whether it supports or opposes same-sex marriage -- should have its teachings and beliefs overridden by the government with its own walls or on its own property.

(Nevermind that this particular civil wrong is currently being perpetrated against churches that do recognize same-sex marriage.  Governments across the nation are unlawfully dictating to churches the meaning of the particular sacred rite known as marriage, by dictating to them that legitimate marriage must be one-man, one-woman.)

The sticking point, according to New Jersey's Star-Ledger, is the fact that the church received public money to refurbish buildings and maintain the beach.  When you accept government money, you accept the government's attached strings.

Churches that eagerly want to tap into government subsidies should think twice about their religious liberties before welcoming into their sanctuaries the regulations that come with government dollars.

And churches that object to the government ordering them to allow same-sex civil unions on their property ought to do the right thing, and oppose it when other governments try to tell other churches that same-sex unions are not valid, even when such other churches believe that they are.

_________

.

There.  Now I've had my views tested from the other side.

No freedom is true freedom unless it respects the freedoms of those whom we disagree with.

Many Religious Right spokespersons attempt to argue that the First Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of religion was merely intended to prevent the establishment of one particular denomination of Christianity, and to keep the government out of the affairs of the church -- all while arguing that the Founding Fathers intended Christianity itself to be the official, legally recognized (and imposed) religion of the United States.

Dr. Thomas Lee Abshier, a former candidate for United States Senate, writes the following, which despite some internal contradictions and conflicting messages, both illustrates a common Religious Right view and acknowledges some problems with it.  He begins:

"The Founders intended that America be a Christian Nation, and they intended that we legislate social behavior using the standards of Biblical principle.  But, they erected a Constitutional wall against Congress establishing a single denomination as a State religion."

But with due caution, observes:

"But, the multiple writers, contexts, and eras make it easy to derive many possible interpretations from the Bible.  As a result, many denominations have arisen to support a particular perspective about Biblical truth.  The ambiguity about the perfect Christian doctrine is one important reason why a particular interpretation of scripture, or system or interpretation (denominational creed) should not be given a place of legally established superiority."

Great point.  He observes further,

"The Founders saw the tendency of the human heart to engage in control and domination in the name of God.  ...  This prohibition was not meant to prevent any and all religious expression in government, but rather to prevent a single creed or denomination of Christianity from using the power of the State to enforce compliance to a single denominational doctrine."

At the rate the good doctor is going, I won't need to write this article.  He's making my opening argument as well as I can.  However, there are more points to address, so let us go to work dissecting this unusually thoughtful piece.

First things first.  Let's admit it.  Nearly 100 percent of the Religious Right's drive for power is to legislate private behavior.  The Gospel is strangely absent from their platform.  So, let's see what it takes to "legislate social behavior using the standards of Biblical principle."

To legislate social behavior using Biblical principles, the government must render a theological decision on Biblical teachings.  But as the doctor observes, different denominations arrive at different interpretations of Scripture.  He correctly says that one particular interpretation shouldn't enjoy legally established superiority. 

Therefore, if the government enacted legislation based on Biblical principles, the government must first have arrived at a particular interpretation -- an interpretation with which some Christian denominations are likely to differ.

For example, some Christians rightly observe that there is nothing wrong with nudity, and that it is in no way contrary to Biblical teaching.  Yet the efforts to censor depictions of, or the practice of, nudity almost always come from people who claim to want laws to reflect "Biblical principles."  By trying to censor or otherwise criminalize nudity, they are trying to enact a particular interpretation of Scripture into law -- an interpretation with which many Christians disagree.

Such legislative acts run afoul of what even the Religious Right claims about church/state separation.

Next, in deciding whether or not to enact a Bible-based law, government must render a theological decision regarding whether or not it should be punishable.  Prostitution was frowned upon under Mosaic Law, but was not criminal in itself.  Yet you can bet that almost everyone who wants Bible-based laws would criminalize prostitution, or insist that it remain criminalized.

But that's yet another theological decision that the government has rendered, with which some Christian denominations might disagree.  By legislating morality, government is usurping the freedom of churches to interpret Scripture on their own and to live according to the findings of their faith.

The priority and emphasis that such a Biblical government would give to each Biblical principle is yet another theological rendering that some Christian denominations would dispute.  Scripture teaches that the love of money is a great source of evil -- yet not only are Religious Right groups and representatives completely neglecting to advocate greed laws, but many of them actively resist the making of laws that would prohibit amassing ridiculous amounts of wealth or require than excess wealth be given to the poor.  That's one Bible-based law that would spark outrage among over 90 percent of the Religious Right!

Moreover, by advocating the legislation of Biblical morality, they are immediately disregarding the beliefs of Christians who believe that legalism went out with the New Covenant.

One can make a strong case that Jesus' two commandments, to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, supercede the legalistic details of Old Testament law.  Other New Testament passages certainly reflect this: "The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10) and "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right." (James 2:8).

To many Christians, legalism and the bindings of Mosaic Law are things of the past, as Ephesians 2:13-17 and Colossians 2:13-15 suggest.

So, when Religious Right groups advocating legislating specific religious moralities, they are also stepping on the toes of Christians who adhere to the above two paragraphs, disregarding the rights of these Christians while giving the Religious Right's doctrinal beliefs a preferred, supreme position in law.

Finally, there is one more theological matter that the Religious Right isn't even contemplating prior to acting -- whether it's Scriptural to legislate religious laws outside the walls of the church in the first place.  By doing so, they are deciding that enacting such laws is Biblically sound -- when many Christian denominations also disagree with that.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 says that God will judge those outside the church.  Any reproof and correction based on Christian doctrine is to take place within the body of Christ, not the world at large.  Even in the frequently quoted passage Romans 1:18-32, there is no command or suggestion that believers try to impose their belief on them.  Indeed, God did exactly the opposite -- He let them go on their way, giving them over to the kind of life they wanted.

And, needless to say, the strife and tensions that always arise between religious (and secular) sects when one religious belief system is imposed by law, violates another New Testament teaching: to live in peace with the people around you.  The early church went out into a pagan world -- yet believers were instructed to live peaceably with them -- not make political trouble for them (Romans 12:18, 1 Peter 3:8-9, 1 Timothy 2:1-4, Titus 3:1-7, Hebrews 12:14).

In other words, the inevitable result of trying to establish religious law via the State is to egregiously violate of New Testament teachings about living peacefully with those around you.

So, in light of all this, what do we make of the Religious RIght's claim that the First Amendment's purpose was merely to prevent the establishment of one particular denomination or its precepts into law, and to keep the government out of the affairs of the church?

We end up discovering that the Religious Right's political agenda is unconstitutional even by their own claims.  When government tries to enact a Biblical law, it renders a theological conclusion that -- by necessity -- codifies one doctrinal view into law over and above the tenets of Christians that might disagree.  And by the act itself of so legisating, it is implicitly favoring the theological view that religious laws are appropriate for legislation -- to the disrespect of Christians who do not.

Therefore, even by the Religious Right's definition, the only possible Constitutional route is the secular view of government and lawmaking.

.

Since we're bringing up the classical "hot topics," here's a couple goodies that I wrote on my sister site.

Critics of gay marriage often ask, "where do you see the right to gay marriage in the Constitution?"

The answer is quite simple, actually,  It's also quite infallible. 

1. Marriage, many opponents of gay marriage correctly say, is a sacred institution.  In other words, marriage is, to many Americans, an institution of religious significance.
2. It is illegal, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, for the government to dictate the content and/or meaning of sacred rites of churches and religious groups.  In other words, it is unlawful for the government to define, by law, religious concepts such as sacredness.
3. Some churches and religious groups recognize sacredness in same-sex marriages.
4. Therefore, the government may not prohibit gay marriages, lest it engage in dictating religious meanings, terms, and/or content to churches and religious groups.
5. The Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees each American equal protection under the law.
6. Therefore, government may not lawfully choose to legally recognize the sacred institutions of some religions while refusing to recognize rites honored by other religious groups.
7. Therefore, governments must honor same-sex marriages as they do opposite-sex marriages.

That's it.  I could stop writing right here.  The only way out of this essentially infallible argument is to prove a compelling need to prohibit gay marriages.  That, I submit, cannot be done.

However, it would be a disservice to quit now, when there are so many pertinent supportive facts to serve up along the way.

Opponents often depict familiar one-man-one-woman marriage as the only true form of marriage since the beginning of time.  They depict gay marriage as a foreign addition to a heretofore undisturbed, untainted eternal institution of one-man-one-woman monogamy.

To do so is terribly ignorant of history and cultural anthropology.

The reality is that marriage has always taken different forms throughout human history.  Alongside polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, and variants of these, same-sex marriage looks like just another member of the pack.  Something like it is even hinted at in the Bible.

Besides finding notoriety in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and related sects, polygamy is countenanced in the Old Testament of the Bible itself.  Group marriage has been practiced in the United States by the Oneida Community, a 19th-century Christian sect founded by John Humphrey Noyes.

Opponents also like to accuse same-sex marriage advocates of "redefining marriage."  Besides the multiple definitions listed above, that have always been part of human history, it's worth pointing out that conservative Christian groups have themselves been writing an alternative form of legal marriage into law: so-called Covenant Marriages.  Covenant marriage, among other attributes, imposes more limitations on divorce.

Okay, so I belabored the point a little, but these were such useful facts.  What we consider traditional marriage has never held a complete lock on the definition of marriage.  And it looks like conservative Christians are themselves out and about enacting alternative forms of marriage into law.

For the purposes of legal gay marriage, the Constitutionally based argument at the top of this article is all you need to know.

.

The brouhaha in the wake of Chad Vegas' proposal to post "In God We Trust" posters in every classroom shook loose a few thoughts and observations of my own.

But first, let me share my own position on this and similar issues.  Later on, after addressing the observations that I have made, I will attempt to justify why my approach to this and similar issues is the best.

In my eyes, working to remove Nativity scenes on city hall lawns, or little crosses from city flags or war memorials, or removing references to God from our money, are wastes of time.  Attempting to do so does next to nothing to broaden individual liberty, and breeds the maximum possible animosity to the concept of church/state separation.

Simply put, these behaviors put the worst possible face on the vital safeguard we know as Separation of Church and State.  Most live-a-day American citizens -- including secular and non-Christian folk -- do not feel threatened by any of these traditional religious allusions.

If "In God We Trust" had been hanging in high school classrooms for all these years, I would not be agitating for their removal.

There are enough truck-sized holes in the church/state wall that plugging the finger-sized leaks in it is silly.

But I oppose the addition of these posters right now, much more due to the motives behind them rather than the words themselves.

Chad Vegas, and those who share his political vision, appear to have a goal of advancing a religious nationalism -- they hope to make the word "American" a synonym for "Christian."  If you're not a Christian -- as they define Christian -- you're not quite a full-fledged American.

Reading some of the comments in favor seem to support this.  When commenters shout to opponents, "if you don't like living in a country based on God, go back where you came from," that is suggesting, quite plainly, that anyone who opposes the unification of religion and government isn't qualified to be an American.

I was born here, and am old enough to remember prayer in public schools.  "Going back where I came from" would take me just across the Mississippi River.

Those of us vested in preserving the separation of church and state, see this coming whenever these issues arise.  Commenters prove our assumptions to be correct, and we go to great lengths to try to convince onlookers of "what these people are really up to."

All the while, onlookers are wishing that we would simply stick to the merits, pro and con, of erecting "In God We Trust" posters.

Trouble is, in today's environment, it's difficult to separate the message from the intent.  Erect them, and a certain segment of us will see in them a formal endorsement of religious nationalism.

And religious nationalism has never, ever, resulted in any benefit for humanity.

Therefore, the real task ought to be: take on the intent and drive that back to the fringe.  Deal with the real threats to religious and personal freedom, and to the church/state wall.  Confront the truck-sized holes in the church/state wall with a flatbed full of brick and mortar.  Strengthen the view that being an American connotes a love of freedom, and a respect for individuality, not a specific religious preference or cultural paradigm.

See, if and when we succeed in beating religious nationalism and thoughts of theocracy back to the distant fringes of political thought, then we will no longer see dangerous and divisive underlying messages in otherwise benign religious references in our classrooms, public grounds, and money.

Defeat the nascent fascism behind the current drive to politicize religion, and the perceived threats of things like "In God We Trust" or a little cross on a public war memorial, will no longer be perceived.  The need to question benign religious references in the public square will disappear, at least in my eyes.

Then we can get back to being just Americans again.