Church and State Debate
I had another opportunity to share the truth when the Morehead State University (KY) sponsored a "Separation of Church and State Debate" on November 8, 2006. Since this was on Wednesday night, and the event was opened to the public, we dismissed our study and attended as observers.
It was announced that the event would feature a panel of experts representing various academic disciplines and religious denominations. Those on the panel were: Dr. Ric Caric, professor of government; Dr. Michael Hail, assistant dean of the Institute for Regional Analysis and Public Policy, assistant professor of government; the Rev. Drew McNeill, campus minister of the Wesley Foundation; Gene Parr, campus minister of the Baptist Student Union; Dr. Randall Swain, assistant professor of government; and Dr. Jack Weir, professor of philosophy.
The moderator announced that there would be a set of six questions, with each panelist having an opportunity to answer. Due to time restraints, this was later reduced to four questions. I will deal with these in order and then give some perspectives and conclusions. My notes within the panelist’s comments will be in parentheses and italics.
Question # 1: What is your definition of "Separation of Church and State?"
The first Respondent was Drew McNeill, the Methodist campus minister. His answer was probably the best among the group. He referenced Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, where Jefferson was trying to allay their fears that the First Amendment would infringe upon the freedoms of the church. McNeill correctly said that Jefferson’s purpose was not to remove a discussion of God from the state.
(In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black declared: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." This was the beginning of the court’s reversing the intent of the First Amendment, as well as the intent of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury group. Future court decisions took this single phrase out of context and turned the meaning upside down.)
The second respondent was Michael Hail. Hail said he was an Episcopalian and was in favor of tolerance and accommodation. As with most of the panel members, Hail sometimes spoke in glowing terms without much concrete meaning. He believes the important question is "How to nurture and cultivate the spiritual health of our nation." He believes that "Government must deposit values" and that the "State inherently engenders values." (I believe the Christian should recognize that values do not come from the State, but from God and His revealed word.)
The third respondent was Ric Caric, who more than once emphasized that he is an atheist. He stated his view by saying: "My general argument on the separation of church and state is that we should at least consider getting rid of it altogether." (It is unclear if he means getting rid of the First Amendment or the idea of separation of church and state.)
The fourth panelist to speak, Jack Weir, said he is a former Baptist, but now a proud member of the ACLU. Weir said he likes what the First Amendment says, but he insists that government officials should not use their position to impose their religious views on others. He believes that individuals, acting individually, can express their faith in various ways, but when acting officially, must not. (Weir includes professors in his list of "officials," but students whom I talked to after this "debate" said the professors always use the classroom to indoctrinate with their religious views.)
Randall Swain was the fifth panelist to speak. He began by saying that he does not have a clear-cut set of beliefs on this subject, but that his views are constantly evolving. He believes the government should not sanction the church—or religion. After referring to some church and state issues of their time, he thinks the Founding Fathers (in drawing up the Constitution) had to have in the back of their minds the experiences of states imposing their faith on others. (While Swain did not offer much to disagree with, neither was there much to agree with. As he said, his views are still evolving.)
The final panelist for this first round was Gene Parr. (This was probably the most "fuzzy" thinker on the panel.) He began by quoting from Jesus: "Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, render to God what is God’s." He said we are all in this together, and it is not church versus state, but "How can the church enhance the values of believers." He said that government is there to interfere in minimal ways to allow people freedom to live their lives, but both government and church fall short of our goals. (Like most of the panelists Parr seemed to give too much credence to the Supreme Court to give us direction. As a Baptist campus minister one would hope he would offer guidance from a higher "Court.")
Question # 2: Which of these three schools of thought do you subscribe to? 1) Separationalist, meaning total separation; 2) Accomodationalist, meaning the First Amendment only prohibits a national church, and allows everything else; 3) Non-Preferentialist, meaning you oppose the government favoring a particular religion, but generally support non-separation over complete separation.
Beginning at the other end of the table Parr was the first to answer. Parr said he found "Things about complete separation that I find really attractive." He does not want government telling him what to believe. He refers to Jefferson’s letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury in support of this "wall of separation." (Parr likes complete separation, yet he is a campus minister in a state university. He misuses Jefferson’s letter, as most do today. He also spent much of his time speaking in meaningless platitudes.)
Swain was the next responder. He said he "probably tilts toward absolute separationist." He is concerned that some religious groups (non-Christian) would otherwise be marginalized because of their beliefs. He calls this the "fatal flaw" of the accomodationist view. Swan thinks there is a place for religion in the public arena—but more in "prophetic" ways. He believes that too much involvement of religion with the state minimizes religious influence. (Here this panelist makes some good points. This is not an issue that always black and white. However, as with all of the other panelists, he leaves the audience with more questions than answers.)
The third to answer this second question is Weir. His first statement was: "I am probably the most radical separationist up here, partly because I used to be a Baptist and I was taught it is bad religion when you try to force people to believe what you believe." Weir believes that politicians should not impose their religious beliefs on others. (Remember this is the proud member of the ACLU! Weir—like all the others—skirts around the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment.)
Ric Caric answers next. He announced: "I am a stone-cold atheist." He said he had not recognized any spirituality inside, outside or around him. He then surprised some by saying that it is hard to find one on campus representing the conservative, evangelical position. Since no one on this panel represents that view, "We are all just talking a lot of hot air." We all agree with one another, he said. He finds it a severe problem for the University that those who have the most at stake are not represented. Therefore, he says, the panel is silenced on the issues of prayer in school and Christmas displays. Caric acknowledges that for the conservative "the existence of God is the most important factor in the universe," and that the matter of salvation is the most important matter in a person’s life. He understands that for the conservative the literal truth of the Bible is a first reference point. He says, "To the extent that we ignore these things we are ignoring a spiritual part of the debate." Then he closes with a sarcastic proposal of a state-supported church. In the same vein he says America has too much religion, thus establishing a national religion would reduce attendance to 5% as it is in Europe. (It is interesting—and very telling—that it is only the atheist that addresses the fundamental issues of this debate. Neither campus minister comes close.)
The fifth response comes from Hail. He begins by saying, "I am an Episcopalian, and I joke with my friends that this means anything goes. We don’t believe in anything too strongly." Of the three options he chooses the Non-Preferential, though he might be considered apathetic on these questions. Most important to him, he says, are "the values of the West." "The Anglican communion," he says, "is one of great tolerance and inclusiveness." He also admits that Anglicans "are very liberal on some people’s spectrums." He believes that "tolerance and inclusiveness are the values of the West, our Constitution and our government." From here he continues to speak in general and philosophical ways—never addressing the real issues.
The final speaker in this segment is McNeill. In his opening statement he says he is having a hard time deciding on one of the three schools of thought on this issue. Later he decides he is closer to an Accomodationist than the other two. Then he states the obvious, "I don’t think you have to be in a political office to influence someone else with your worldview." He believes that every society has had some religious influence. (I don’t see anything especially wrong with McNeill’s position here, but he doesn’t really address the core of the issue.)
At this point Randall Swain wants to interject some new thoughts. As done by others at different times he appeals to the Supreme Court. He says, "In a society dominated by Protestants and Catholics other groups are going to be alienated." On the subject of posting the Ten Commandments and prayer in schools, he wonders which version of the Commandments and prayer is to be used. (While I believe Swain thinks he has presented some insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of these two practices, he is in fact simply bringing out the much used "red herrings.")
Question # 3: Do you believe the Declaration of Independence shows a preference towards Christianity?
Drew McNeill was the first to be asked. He read from the Declaration, emphasizing the spiritual aspects. He said, "I believe the declaration of Independence assumes that there would be a belief in a God," but does not insist that a citizen believe in God. Those who founded this country, he says, were of the Judeo-Christian heritage. (This answer is a good one, but limited by the nature of the question.)
Michael Hail is the next to address this question. He refers to some of the Founding Fathers who accepted Christianity as a uniting force for our nation. He also mentioned such Presidents as Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and George Bush, who turned to religion as a guiding force and value system. (This was also a good answer, as far as the question led.)
Now we are back to the atheist, Caric. He admits that the Declaration refers to divinity, but does not think it refers to the Christian God. Caric does not think the Declaration could be Christian because it does not mention original sin, Jesus, Paul, the Beatitudes, or even the Christian church. He says that neither Jesus nor Paul would agree with our American Revolution. And, since Jefferson was a Deist who removed the miracles from his Bible, maybe the Christian God is not implied in the Declaration. At the end of this session he poses a question for the conservative Evangelicals: "Why bother with the Declaration of Independence" since it is not a divine document. Maybe they should reject the Founding Fathers who did not include Jesus or Paul in the declaration." (Caric is very intelligent and articulate, which makes him dangerous to the unwary. But the biblically literate Christian can see that his arguments are built on sinking sand. For one thing, he selects out Jefferson as an example and never mentions those who were believers. And the declaration was not intended to be a biblical text, but a political document. To expect to find the Beatitudes in the Declaration is ludicrous.)
Now Weir takes the stage. He does not think the Declaration is Christian. He believes the Old Testament pictures a society like modern Islam because of the relationship of church and state. Since the people of the Old Testament did not like the arrangement they chose a king over a theocracy. The book of Acts shows that people believed in communism and the Bible says "blacks should be slaves." All of this makes him "scared of mixing church and state." (Weir might be accused of being a bit weird in the way he interprets the Bible. The difference between the Old Testament people under God and modern Islam under the Mullahs is so dramatic that the novice Bible student would not miss it. His charge that the book of Acts supports communism and that the Bible condones black slavery are also patently false.)
Next Swain swims into the pool of discussion. He thinks for the Founding Fathers "The purpose of religion was to promote a civil society." He says the writings of Jefferson, Franklin and Madison show that they took a jaundiced look at the supernatural. They would have agreed that Jesus was a good, moral person, a good teacher—but God? They believed in providence, but what does that mean? (It is true that the Founding Fathers thought religion was important for a civil society, but was that the main reason for their endorsement? I think not. There are many extant quotes from them to show that they had a personal faith. For example, John Adams said: "The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." And, it is reported that on July 12, 1804 at his death, Alexander Hamilton said, "I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.")
The final panelist to address question number three is Parr. He says the Declaration is no doubt not a Christian document, but is influenced by a Judaeo-Christian belief. He says they believed in an absolute truth that all men are created equal, with unalienable rights. His conclusion is that he fears a state controlled by church, but also fears a state without a church. (These are generic statements which do not add much to the basic argument.)
Question # 4: What do you think about Justice O’Conner’s statement that we should not forsake a system which has served us well? (Presumably this means the way the First Amendment has been interpreted since 1947.)
Caric says, "I don’t think O’Conner knows what she is talking about." What O’Conner does not realize is the intense unhappiness of many American Evangelical and Fundamentalists. He then enumerates many social problems, including divorce, the gay agenda and abortion. "If O’Conner thinks that the separation of church and state has served American religion very well, she is mistaken." (As an atheist Caric does not sympathize with the Christian community, but he is able to analyze the situation.)
Weir, as an active member of the ACLU, says the ACLU can do nothing not approved by the Constitution. He says he is involved in removing the Ten Commandments from public places. For him, since this country may some day become a Muslim nation, the ACLU is doing Christians a service. (Apparently Weir fails to recognize that the ACLU is not engaged in protecting the Constitution, but in reinterpreting it, and ultimately destroying it. And his role in a Muslim nation would change dramically!)
Hail makes a long and meandering "speech," in which he says (in part): "I have to agree with my fellow panelists on the question of whether or not we may want the Ten Commandments posted. After all, the Evangelicals we are referring to are not terribly happy with my church (Episcopalian), in our embrace of gays and lesbians, as well as a whole range of issues. I don’t think there is a lot of common ground there. Yet, at the same time, one has to respect the fact that government has to make difficult choices, which sometimes crosses lines." After continuing at some length Hail concludes that he agrees with justice O’Conner’s position because it is the way of openness and tolerance. (It is obvious that Hail does not represent the views of conservative Christians on the social, moral and Constitutional issues.)
Parr concludes the discussion on this question. He agrees with O’Conner in that we should not tear down the "wall" of separation between church and state. He correctly says that since 1947 the wall no longer separates church and state, but state and religion. Then he points out that in 1962 a ruling changed the meaning of church from denomination to all public religious activity. And so the First Amendment has been renegotiated as we become more pluralistic. He concludes that this may be a good thing as long as we do not renegotiate the private exercise of religion. Some areas in which he has concerns of losing the free exercise of include petitioning against global warming and genocide. (Parr seems to be comfortable with all of the renegotiating of the First Amendment. His agenda is more in the mold of the Social Gospel than the New Testament Gospel. While he is petitioning the President to do something about Darfur, he may be losing his freedom to speak the truth of the Gospel.)
Questions and Answers
There were a couple of friendly questions from the students before I was able to speak. When I arose (with a prayer in my heart) and was recognized I was given a microphone. I began by saying that Dr. Weir needed to reread his Bible, because the Bible does not condone enslavement of blacks, and the book of Acts does not promote communism. Although Dr. Weir tried to interrupt, I continued. After I completed my comments Dr. Weir said he agreed that the Bible did not teach enslavement of the blacks, but that some had interpreted it that way. In the same response to my comments about Acts and communism, the Baptist campus minister (Gene Parr) insisted that Acts 4 does in fact show a group operating under a communist form of society. He added that it was not Marxist communism but communal communism nonetheless. I believe this is a misreading of an event which was a benevolent response to fellow Christians who had stayed in Jerusalem after Pentecost and depleted their supplies.
In my comments I pointed out that the "debate" was slanted because the panel members were more concerned about the church influencing the state than the state restricting the church. Following my comments the Methodist campus minister (Drew McNeill) disagreed with my assessment. However, as reported earlier, Dr. Caric (the atheist) said they all agreed with one another, and he finds it a severe problem for the University that those who have the most at stake are not represented. Therefore, he said, the panel is silenced on the issues of prayer in school and Christmas displays.
As I continued my remarks it was obvious that the panel and moderator were not comfortable with what was being said. At one point the moderator asked if I had a question, to which I answered, "No." I interpreted this as a message to me that if I did not have a question to sit down. At another time during my remarks the young lady who had passed me the microphone attempted to take it back. These are the actions of a University which claims to promote diversity, tolerance and the expression of different ideas.
As part of my comments I said that in the First Amendment the same protection provided for the Press is also provided for the church. Yet, the same persons who will fight for the freedom of the press will deny that freedom to the Christian.
At this juncture in my discourse I used some personal experiences to illustrate how our country has changed away from acceptance of Christianity. I said: "I graduated from a Kentucky High School in 1950. During those high school years my Principal walked the halls singing: ‘Bringing in the Sheaves.’ When one of my sons graduated from an Ohio high school in 1974 I was invited to speak at the graduation ceremony. There were NO limitations and I preached a sermon. We have come a long way."
Then, as I saw my tenure was soon to be terminated, I said I would close with a quote from the Lutheran minister, Martin Niemoller (1892-1984), who said in 1945: "In Germany they came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade-unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
As I sat down I said, "If we Christians do not speak up we will some day be in that same position."
Aftermath
Following my response to this "debate" there was a significant applause, indicating that some of the students agreed with me. At the end of the session several students came to me and thanked me for speaking up. As I was leaving the campus three other students also thanked me for speaking out. One of the first group of students said: "That was awesome. Thank you for being so bold and speaking out. The others did not have the courage. You should have been up there. They couldn’t have handled you." At length they told me how these professors promote their anti-Christian ideas in class. I report this not to boast, but to show how the students on our college campuses need to know that there are some who offer hope beyond the liberal university faculty. May God provoke our spirits to respond!