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.

Speaking of Freedom: How About a Strong Separation of Church and State?

Dr. Dennis Herman

Until recently, most Baptists have adhered to a belief in a distinct and strong separation between Church and State. We Baptists believe that the State has no right to dictate how we worship in our homes and church buildings. Likewise, we Baptists have long insisted that the State functions remain functions of a government that represents all of its people, its religions, or even those of no religion. We have insisted, and rightly so, that the State not meddle in the affairs of Church. Some Baptists, however, are arguing that a strong separation of Church and State is no longer important. Some pulpits have become election campaign platforms; and some church people, including pastors, have taken to endorsing candidates who would accommodate their own Church’s position on social issues.

Such a change is a danger to both Church and State. Before we jump on the bandwagon of popular religious slogans like “bring back prayer to school,” we would do well to ask in this pluralistic society, “whose prayers are we bringing back?” Are we to be led in public forums, schools, and government meetings by Muslim prayers? How about Buddhist chants? How about prayers in the name of St. Francis or the Blessed Virgin? How about Wiccan prayers? And if we live in certain parts of the country, we would perhaps be led in prayer by a Mormon, or Unitarian Universalist, or a Campbelite minister.

I don’t like being told how to pray, or to whom, or even being led in a prayer whose theology voices a different understanding of God’s love than mine. So I’ll just continue to pray like I’ve always been taught to pray in my heart. No one can tell me not to pray. Others might not hear me, but God will. In fact, I wonder if God might hear the silent and heart-felt prayers we sincerely offer, rather than prayers in the public forum which tend to persuade or impress. Just wondering…

Dennis Herman is the interim pastor at Oxford Baptist Church in Oxford, NC. This article originally appeared in their church newsletter, The Forecaster.

Thoughts on Faith and Politics

by Rev. H. Michael Johnson

As a citizen, I am pleased that in our nation we can debate the issues and qualities of those who we consider electing into offices to serve every person. We are in the midst of watching our democratic system at work in choosing leadership.

As a Christian, I am appalled at the abuse of the Scriptures to serve a political purpose. Candidates promote the worst kind of religion that is judgmental, harsh, legalistic, hate-filled. In seeking to win votes, prayer is turned into a weapon and Jesus is given a party label. They trash the Messiah’s directives to love all and serve all with their stump speeches.

Religion is a powerful weapon and has always been used by faith groups to dehumanize others and justify attacks on the lives of those whom they wish to conquer. Christians often use texts picked out of context to denounce their political opponents and turn people’s trust in God into shouts of rage just as Satan used the Scripture to tempt Jesus in the wilderness to serve the purposes of Satan.

Jesus came, not with the political power of an earthly kingdom, but with God’s power that stands up to the darkness of this world raining justice on people and not an angry religion. The power of Jesus sought to call people’s lives to change toward the good; crossing any cultural boundary to lift up the fallen, hurting, the lonely, the forgotten. The power of Jesus loves enemies and sees all humanity as worthy of coming to God’s table.

Jesus came to be a light to all nations. Let us tell the true story.

Michael Johnson is the pastor of First Baptist Church of Rowland, NC. This article originally appeared in their church newsletter, First Baptist News.

An Update on Church-State Separation

by Rev. Dr. Charles P. McGathy

As national political fires heat up, the subject of separation of church and state once again becomes a topic of intense debate. We Baptists may belong to different political parties or prefer to vote as independents, but we ought to be clear when it comes to the separation of church and state that there is historically one consistent position for Baptists. Our faith is founded upon the notion that there should be religious freedom for all people and that the separation of church and state is a biblical principle supported by Jesus. When he taught his followers to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s,” he established a wall that we should understand and respect.

Our Baptist forbearers understood this. As Baptists they were frequently the recipients of unfair treatment of a church-dominated state, both in the old world an in the fledgling American colonies. That is why Baptists like John Leland are so important. He demanded an absolute separation of religion and government. Leland argued to men like James Madison who framed the U.S. Constitution:

Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks (Muslims), Pagans and Christians.

I mention John Leland intentionally because he would be mortified to learn that the award that bears his name has just been awarded by the Southern Baptist’s Ethics and Religious Commission to Alan Sears. Alan Sears who heads up the Alliance Defense Fund has actually advocated the removal of a wall of separation between church and government. He has said, “One by one more and more bricks that make up the artificial 'wall of separation' between church and state are being removed, and Christians are once again being allowed to exercise their constitutional right to equal access to public facilities and funding.” Surely John Leland would be turning in his grave, where inscribed upon the tombstone it says:

Here lies the body of John Leland, 1754-1841, who labored sixty-seven years to promote piety and vindicate the civil and religious rights of men.

Perhaps such Baptist capitulation to the demagoguery much in vogue these days inspired the political candidate who recently proclaimed that the idea of church and state separation did not come from Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, but from Adolph Hitler. Glen Urquhart (candidate for House of Representatives from Delaware) addressed a crowd of supporters when he made this startling announcement:

Do you know, where does this phrase “separation of church and state” come from? It was not in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. …The exact phrase “separation of Church and State” came out of Adolf Hitler's mouth, that's where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they're Nazis.

Actually he is quite wrong. As James Evans points out:

Hitler was, in fact, a great promoter of the union of church and state. One of the main features of his consolidation of power in Germany in the early 1930s was the effort to nationalize the Christian church. And for the most part he was successful. Whether out of loyalty or fear, many if not most of the churches in Germany signed on to Hitler's vision as expressed through the Nazi Party.

The fact remains, however, that such irresponsible statements are made with increasing regularity and actually supported in essence by the very ones who should speak most clearly on religious liberty. As Free and Faithful Baptists, we will not succumb to the temptation to retreat from our founding values. Let us advocate for religious freedom for all. That means that no religion is favored by the state. God’s church does not need the state to interfere or to assist in her mission. All real Baptists know this.

Chuck McGathy is the pastor of First Baptist Church of Madison, NC. This article originally appeared in their October church newsletter.

The Decade in Religious Liberty

by Rev. J. Brent Walker

Dubbed by Time magazine the “decade from hell,” the past 10 years have been ones for which we can say good riddance: September 11, two costly and deadly wars, the economic meltdown. In terms of church-state relations, however, it has been a mixed bag -- some good news, some bad.

The decade saw the Rehnquist Court become the Roberts Court and, after 11 years of the same nine justices, a change in one-third of the high tribunal.

From the Baptist Joint Committee’s perspective, when John Roberts took over as chief justice, the Supreme Court’s church-state posture was improved. In our estimation, Chief Justice Rehnquist almost always decided church-state cases wrongly. Chief Justice Roberts appears to be more sympathetic to free exercise even though he may be no better than Chief Justice Rehnquist on Establishment Clause cases. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was right most of the time and could be counted on to render carefully nuanced opinions. While Justice Samuel Alito’s church-state jurisprudence has not been fully fleshed out, his replacement of Justice O’Connor is definitely a minus. He authored the court’s opinion in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007), which made it harder for plaintiffs to bring Establishment Clause cases. Finally, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appears from her Judiciary Committee testimony and judicial record to be sound in her church-state views, but Justice David Souter, whom she replaced, was nearly perfect in the 20 church-state opinions he wrote or joined. She has a lot to live up to.

On balance, we have taken a small step backward in terms of the justices’ church-state jurisprudence.

The Establishment Clause jurisprudence, generally speaking, continued to weaken, especially with regard to the issue of government funding of religious activities and organizations. The decade started off with Mitchell v. Helms (2000) in which the court further pared back a key standard set by the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (at least for funding cases) and loosened the strictures on direct aid to pervasively religious organizations. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the court narrowly upheld the constitutionally of a school-voucher program, at least where parents purportedly have genuine choice between schools. As mentioned earlier, the court’s decision in Hein made it harder to challenge government expenditures under the Establishment Clause. The effects of that decision have been felt in the lower courts.

With respect to other Establishment Clause cases dealing with religious speech and sectarian symbols, we fared better. The court continued to rule out government-sponsored student prayer in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) and the posting of the Ten Commandments absent a clear secular purpose in McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky. (2005). Under different facts, where the Decalogue is displayed along with many other monuments and has gone unprotested for decades, the rule is different, according to Van Orden v. Perry (2005).

On the free-exercise front, I think we made some significant progress. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993 restored increased protection -- at least at the federal level -- for the exercise of religion, and its salutary effect continued through the next decade. Many states have passed similar measures. In Gonzales v. UDV (2006), the court properly upheld an application of RFRA that protected the religious-liberty interests of a small religious sect that sought an exemption to the Controlled Substance Act. Moreover, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), passed by the Congress and signed into law in 2000, provides increased protection in zoning and prisoner free-exercise cases. The court, in Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005), upheld RLUIPA’s constitutionality, at least with respect to prisoner cases. Finally, in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), the court embraced the equal-access principle in cases dealing with religious exercise and after-class club meetings in the public schools.

We continued to work on how to ensure the separation of church and state without divorcing religion from public life. The public square has never been as “naked” as some would have us think. For most of the past decade, it was dressed to the nines in talk about religion.

Nowadays, polls demonstrate that the American public has become less enamored of the explicit melding of religion and politics, even though they continue to desire leaders to be religious and even though they show little enthusiasm for banning religion altogether from the public square.

It is also fair to say that there has been a growing sentiment that would banish religion from public life altogether. Here I am talking about those leveling a trenchant atheistic critique of religion generally and religion in public life in particular, including Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. While troublesome, I think this group still pales in influence and numbers against those on the other end of the spectrum who would explicitly and unabashedly combine religion and public life, if not church and state altogether.

In this country, we have not always managed to get the church-state/religious freedom/religion-and-politics equation just right. That is true of the past 10 years. We should redouble our efforts to argue for a stout vision for both religion clauses in the First Amendment, welcome religion in the public square (while arguing against abusing religion for partisan purposes), and provide an example for the rest of the world to see and, hopefully, imitate.

Let’s all hope and pray that the next decade is better than the preceding one -- maybe a “decade from heaven” when it comes to religious liberty.

Brent Walker is the Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. A version of this article originally appeared on the BJC's website and was then adapted and reprinted on the Associated Baptist Press' website.

Separation of Church, State, and Bathrooms?

by Rev. Laura Barclay

The offices of CBF of North Carolina share second floor office space with the NC Revenue Service, among other businesses. We have never had a major conflict with that office--until that fateful Tuesday. My co-worker came back from the restroom horrified. “They are putting locks on the restrooms to keep the public out!” Upon our questioning of the building manager, who arrived shortly after to give us the code to the bathroom keypad, he explained that it was to “keep street people out.”

“Who are street people?” I asked.
“Uh, you know, not people who would come to your office. It’s mostly the people that come to the tax office,” he responded.
“Oh, you mean poor people?” I asked.
“Oh, no. I mean, the people that visit your office are ok,” he said nervously.
“So, our visitors are somehow better than those of the revenue office?” I questioned.
“No….”

And so on. My co-workers and I argued something like this: “Going to the bathroom is a basic human right. The tax office should not dictate this as there are other paying tenants in the building. If you give us that code, we will give it to everyone, because the government cannot say who can and cannot go to the bathroom. We are a church, and Jesus preached hospitality. We refuse to sit in a building and idly watch people who come in to conduct business not be allowed to use the bathroom because they are not deemed eligible by the revenue offices’ standards. It’s inhumane.”

He later apologized, explained he was a Christian and just doing his job. He stated that they had responded to a complaint from the tax office about a messy bathroom. Because they had the highest number of visitors of any tenant, their opinion was chosen without asking others.

Perhaps this encounter underscores, in an everyday and mundane way, the importance of the Baptist value of separation of church and state. We can’t even agree on bathroom procedure! While the government does have some wonderful services that the church is simply not organized enough to provide (i.e., public education and unemployment services, among other things), we can call the government toward the hospitality exemplified in Jesus’ life. We have the freedom to do so because our interests are not entangled. I encourage you to do this in your own lives and churches, whether it pertains to healthcare for millions of uninsured Americans, environmental concerns, systemic poverty issues in your community, or any issues that weigh on the hearts of those who love God and their neighbor.

Thoughts and questions for reflection:

How does the church reflect hospitality? Is your church open to the poor?

How do Christians reflect or not reflect Jesus’ call to hospitality?

What does Jesus’ example of hospitality mean to you?

How Far Is Too Far in Religious Politics?

by Dr. Ken Massey, pastor of First Baptist Church of Greensboro, NC

As a Baptist desirous of defending church state separation and religious liberty, I am troubled by a growing practice among Catholic leaders.

I’m referring to the practice of withholding communion from elected representatives who vote in ways that are not consistent with Catholic teaching. Catholic clergy across the country have either refused to give or have asked officials like Rep. Patrick Kennedy to abstain from communion because their votes are contrary to Catholic dogma. Should any religion use ultimate spiritual leverage to get a vote from our representatives who happen to be adherents of that religion? When does political pressure from religion turn into extortion?

Regardless of the issue or the religion involved, what we are seeing from the Catholic Church is a dangerous precedent that crosses the line into church-state entanglement. We have entered a minefield when ecclesiastical leaders use spiritual coercion on politicians so they vote according to sectarian doctrine.

I am not protesting Catholic discipline in general, only that which is directed at our representatives for the explicit purpose of making their votes line up with Church teaching. And I’m not suggesting that religious groups should not lobby for their causes. Rather, I’m arguing that severing a Catholic politician from their primary means of grace (Communion), leaps far beyond the typical political pressures of money and support. A Catholic should, if they believe the Church’s teaching, consider their immortal souls in danger if they cannot receive communion. A Baptist would just join another church, but for a Catholic politician it might feel like a spiritual gun is being held to their head.

When religious rulers step in between public servants and their sworn ultimate duty to uphold the Constitution, it seems to me that they have crossed a line. Threatening House and Senate members so that they vote with the Church is an unconstitutional goal that effectively creates congressional seats for the Holy See.

The U.S. has avoided the religious wars that entangled the Imperial Roman Church over the centuries. We did this not because we refused to elect religious people, but because we refused to elect men and women as representatives of their religion. Our congressional leaders represent ALL persons of ALL beliefs in their congressional districts. Our founders knew the tragic history of religious politics and rejected it.

This spiritual strong arm on elected officials is bad for the Church because it will create backlash. Many will refuse to elect otherwise capable Catholics if they think these politicians will be obligated or pressured to vote as directed by The Church. The same would be true if Muslim members of Congress were obligated to “vote the Koran” or if Methodist Senators had to check in with their bishop before they voted.

This practice is also a step down the wrong road for a country that values religious liberty. If you think political warfare between secular political factions is hurting our country, just wait for an injection of sectarian religion. There’s nothing quite like a mandate from God to kill compromise and justify any and all means necessary to achieve a goal. We don’t need religious exclusionists taking the mainstream hostage as we see in other countries.

Our country does not need Baptist or Catholic representatives. We need U.S. representatives that vote for the good of the country—a country that has refused to give preference to any religion but instead liberty to all.