NC Lawmakers Seek to Set Up a State Religion

by Dr. David Stratton


Yesterday I wrote about NC House Bill 494 that seeks to open the door to a state establishment of religion in this state. Using a feature from the earthly ministry of Jesus I showed that Jesus established a separateness between his mission and government. Now I would like to respond to some comments of the sponsors of the bill published in an article in the Raleigh News and Observer.

Carl Ford and Harry Warren, the Rowan County Representatives who filed the bill, say that they have no intention of setting up a state church. They want to support Rowan County Commissioners in a legal battle with the American Civil Liberties Union about the regular use of specifically Christian prayers to open their meetings. While the motivation behind the bill may be to allow such prayers the actual language of the legislation goes much further. The measure states that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution "does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion" and that North Carolina does not recognize federal court rulings that regulate or prohibit the state or any political entities within the state from "making laws respecting an establishment of religion."

So these two State Representatives and the eleven others who have signed on as sponsors may only wish to support Christian prayers at County Commissioner meetings, but the language of the bill clearly expresses support for a state establishment of religion.

However, the language of the legislation would have to go that far in order to accomplish the aim regarding Christian prayers at government meetings. The framers of the Bill of Rights clearly understood the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to express strict separation of church and state.  

One year after Congress approved the Bill of Rights, in the discussion concerning the census bill, James Madison explained why he did not include on the census a question concerning the occupations of citizens. He was concerned about listing religious professionals. Madison did not think it proper to list members of the clergy because “the general government is proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who [are] and who are not ministers of the gospel." No member of Congress disagreed with Madison's reasoning.

So the actual framers of the Bill of Rights believed its language to prevent the government from asking citizens what they do for a living because the question would have to be posed to ministers which was not allowed because the government was not to touch religion "in any manner whatever." This is obviously an expression of strict separation between church and state, and this is the interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by the the body that adopted it.

However, the sponsors of NC House Bill 494 say that the First Amendment does not apply to states. The problem with this thinking is that a series of Supreme Court rulings in the 1920s interprets a portion of the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that the First Amendment is enforceable against state governments. But the NC bill in question says that it does not recognize such court rulings. The problem with this thinking is that anyone with two grains of sense knows the the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law in this nation.

But what about the root cause of this lousy bill: prayer at County Commissioner meetings. Whatever you may think about that issue the solution proposed by the Rowan County Reps is way over the top. Yet, is public prayer at government meetings really a wise move?

Are Muslims allowed to lead prayers in Allah's name at County Commissioner meetings in Rowan County or any other county? Are members of any other religious faith other than Christians allowed to lead such prayers? What about those of no faith at all, how are they to participate in these prayers? I don't know the answers to these questions--I'm just asking.

The response of those who would support only Christian prayers in government meetings might be that the overwhelming majority of the citizens in their area claim to be Christians so it is appropriate that only Christian prayers be offered. The problem with this reasoning is that religious liberty is a fundamental right for all and if that right does not extend to everyone then everyone is not free.  The driving force, really, behind the religion clauses of the First Amendment was oppression of religious minorities in this land.

Baptists in particular were severely persecuted as a religious minority in Virginia from about 1760 to 1780. In practicing their faith they were beaten, jailed, and fined by other Christians when church and state were united there. In response Baptists and others said that church and state should be separate in order that the government would not infringe on the rights of conscience of anyone, including those belonging to religious groups that were not in the majority and those claiming no religious faith at all.

Many would say that religious freedom is best preserved by keeping government out of religion entirely, including public prayer at government meetings. But Christians who want for this to remain a truly free country and who desire prayer in government meetings must make the practice free and fair for all faith groups and for those of no faith, including those in the minority. And I'm wondering how that can be accomplished in a manner that guards the fundamental right of religious liberty for all.

Dave Stratton is the Pastor of Woodhaven Baptist Church in Apex, NC. This article originally appeared on Dave’s blog, David’s Deliberations.

Build the Mosque, Build Good Will

by Dr. Tony Cartledge

The proposed construction of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero has reached "scorching" on the hot-button scale of controversy. Political conservatives almost uniformly oppose the mosque, arguing that it encroaches too closely onto the sacred soil where thousands of Americans were killed by Muslim extremists. More moderate and liberal folk, including President Obama, say the issue is a matter of religious freedom and point out that it was fanatical members of Al Qaida, not Muslims in general, who carried out the attacks.

Opponents of the planned mosque, people who often like to fly the flag of patriotism, are hurting their cause and their country with their ill-conceived opposition. I suggest several things to consider:

1. Violent extremist groups such as Al Qaida recruit true believers by convincing them that Americans hate Muslims. The rabid opposition some have shown to the mosque's construction plays into their hands and works to the extremists' favor.

2. Any number of violent, senseless, and terroristic acts have been undertaken in the name of Christianity. Untold thousands of Muslims (and people thought to look like Muslims) were killed during the Crusades, including women and children. The Ku Klux Klan, which brought a reign of terror to blacks in the American South, claimed to be Christian. Even domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, were strongly influenced by supposedly Christian beliefs. Arguing that a mosque near Ground Zero is an offense to the "hallowed ground" where the attacks took place, if followed to its logical conclusion, suggests that churches located near places where Christian-related acts of violence were committed should be torn down. That would include all the majestic churches built by the Crusaders to symbolize Christianity conquering the Muslim world.

3. Have you been to the neighborhood near Ground Zero lately? If anything, a new mosque would be an improvement over the bars, strip clubs, and porn shops that now populate the area. Do those honor the dead?

4. America is indeed built on a foundation of religious freedom. If the people who want to build the mosque own the land and meet the local zoning requirements and building codes, they have the right to build a mosque, or a temple, or a synagogue, or a church -- and denying that right is just wrong.


Tony Cartledge is the contributing editor for Baptists Today, and also teaches Old Testament at Campbell University Divinity School. This post originally appeared on his blog at http://www.tonycartledge.com/.