Statutes of Liberty (pt. 1 of 3): Not So Separate or Equal
From very early on its history, America prided itself on the notion of liberty. While that idea is understandably tied to the American revolution, it later became closely associated with America’s emancipation of slaves. Indeed, some 20 years after the close of the Civil War, the Statue of Liberty was dedicated. 150 years later, this 30-storey monument of the Roman goddess Libertas is an icon of liberty and freedom in general, and perhaps the United States in particular.
It’s a reminder of the importance of liberty in the United States.
To be sure, we’ve certainly missed the mark on this at times throughout history. I don’t think America is unique in that regard; no country is perfect, and there never will be a perfect country. But to the extent to which we’re an icon, an example, and leader of liberty around the world, it’s important we try and be true to this. I mean, America had a civil war in the 1860’s, in part, because there were millions of Americans who believed in oppressing and mistreating an entire ethnic group of people, even going as far as to deny them of something as consequential as being acknowledged as human. Even after emancipation, we had things like Black Codes and Jim Crow to institutionalize the oppression and subjugation of an entire group of Americans.
The good news is, America had really great moments in its history, too… moments to be proud of. We had the Women’s Suffrage from the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s, culminating in the 19th amendment, providing the right for (white) women to vote (see what I did there?). We also had the Civil Rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s, culminating in the Civil Rights Act, which abolished Jim Crow and legally protected the rights of Black Americans as US citizens (I should add there are many other protective provisions for other groups of Americans as well).
In many ways, you can think of these, and others, as the statutes of liberty. They represent policy that protects the basic rights of American citizens… admittedly, these were rights that many of these groups already had, but they weren’t being allowed to exercise these rights for reasons far beyond the scope of this essay.
But today, my focus isn’t on Black people.
And it’s not on women.
I’m actually interested in the liberties for LGBT persons (persons who are gay, bisexual, transgender, and more).
My biggest point in this essay is that these persons, just like all Americans, have liberties. But for decades, Christian Americans have been one of the biggest opponents of LGBT Americans having the right to exercise those liberties. But aside from the fact there doesn’t really seem to be a legal or constitutional basis for withholding rights from LGBT persons, I don’t even think there’s a Biblical basis for being in opposition of LGBT rights.
Importantly, these operate independently of whether or not LGBT lifestyles are in keeping with one’s Christian values. That is, whether or not a person feels a lifestyle is consistent with the Bible has almost nothing to do with whether or not law-abiding, taxpaying citizens should be able to exercise the same rights as other Americans.
We’re dealing with complex subject matter, but I’ll try and distill my essay into 3 points, and this will be part 1 of 3 for the essay. As for housekeeping, this essay is addressed to American Christians, because the misconceptions and the school of thought I critique here tend to be widely held in many Christian circles. Research in psychology and sociology, too, underscores the point on Christian Americans having a lot of reservations and opposition on this particular topic. To me, I think the essay is a win win. At best, you may be strongly persuaded in your thinking and see the merit of a view that you never would have previously considered. At worst, you’ll disagree and see my views as a bit strange. So, aside from taking a bit of heat (which I probably will, tbh), I don’t see a major downside.
Can I be honest? Time will tell.
Proposition 1: America separated church and state in the late 1800’s, so the Bible, or any religious text for that matter, isn’t really a strong basis for (or against) introducing a policy or removing it.
It’s true. It’s interesting because separating the government and organized religion is perhaps one of the most important developments in American history, but it’s still an idea we seem to be really trippy about. Government and religion represent two of the most influential institutions in all of human existence. The government designs policies and intervention to serve and advance the wellbeing of a community of people (at the level of the city, state, province, country, etc.). And religion enriches our lives by providing us meaning, purpose, community, and guiding principles to live by. Even for countries that, for whatever reason, elect not to separate church and state, a necessary condition for these institutions to be successfully integrated is religious homogeneity. In other words, you need to have a country of people who all adhere to the same religion. As you would imagine, in an increasingly global world, THAT’S BECOMING LESS AND LESS COMMON. Sure, there are countries that are mostly Muslim, or mostly Buddhist, or mostly Hindu, etc., but even that is complicated by the fact that most of those religious traditions, Christianity included, have diversity within them. In other words, they aren’t a religious monolith… there are within-group nuances reflecting their unique religious views.
For instance, in Islam, there’s Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims, and those sects further split into smaller groups. Like all religious groups, these sects have views that overlap in important ways, but they diverge in important ways as well… that’s why they’re different sects. In Buddhism, you have more of the same. The 3 biggest sects, Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, diverge in their religious teachings and philosophies, although they all center on the belief in the pursuit of Nirvana. So, even within the context of a nation that has one religious tradition, it’s remarkably complex to have church and state as part of the same institution, because different religious sects and traditions diverge in their beliefs, even within an overarching religion.
This is a bad idea. That’s why we separate church and state.
Even if you satisfy this requirement of having a country with religious homogeneity, this is still a bad idea. One of the major reasons why is that church and state are DIFFERENT institutions with DIFFERENT goals.
Government: designs policies and intervention to serve and advance the wellbeing of a community of people.
Church / Religion: enriches our lives by providing us meaning, purpose, community, and guiding principles to live by.
In the very best-case scenario, church and state are the same institution and operate with 0 (ZERO) interference / conflict. But again, that almost never happens… because they have different interests. In democracies, politicians are accountable to people. People voted you in. People will vote you out. You’re accountable to people. In religions, people are usually accountable to deities (or religious principles). Those represent competing pressures… do you really think combining these two institutions is a good idea?
At best, it’s a huge stretch.
Circling back on our example of democracies, here, politicians give people what they want, and their political record, in many ways, is defined by their ability to do that… if you don’t, you won’t be reelected. Obviously, you need things like good ideas, and influence, and things of that type… but if you don’t deliver on things to the PEOPLE, in a democracy, you’re toast. In such a situation, combining church and state works perfectly well when people and deities (more or less) want the same things. It does NOT work well when deities and people want fundamentally different things.
This isn’t a good idea.
But this isn’t an artifact of democracies. There are many countries in the world that don’t have democracies, and this would be a bad idea for them, too.
In monarchies, for instance, political leaders aren’t elected, so they’re not accountable to the people in the form of voting behavior. Nevertheless, you still have some of the same tension. Quite frequently, a monarch’s narcissism, abuse of authority, material and luxurious lifestyles, are at odds with many mainstream religions that tend to focus on a simple, virtuous life. But when church and state are part of the same institution, this would mean religious leaders wouldn’t be permitted to denounce lifestyle choices or behaviors of the monarch, because religious leaders work for the government… they’re part of the same institution.
This is NOT. A GOOD. IDEA. And to be sure, we have well-known examples, too.
Think about European colonialism. This wasn’t just a strategy for imperial conquest. Many of these monarchies also sought to advance the Gospel message while doing so. And then you have this weird, perverted relationship where you’re preaching the Gospel to men and women that you kidnapped from Africa and then you sell them into slavery in a foreign country. Nevermind the fact that what happened was wrong for so many reasons… this type of incestuous relationship makes it very challenging for leaders of any religious group to denounce behaviors that are culturally and socially relevant… because political leaders believe they’re ADVANCING the church, so to scrutinize their attitudes, behaviors, or policy means you’re calling their morality into question.
We could say the same about the Spanish and the Roman Inquisition. The church and state were so committed to rooting out heresy and advancing the Gospel, they burned members of other religious groups at the stake if they refused to be baptized. So hypothetically, if you’re a Christian during this time, you can imagine the fear you would have in speaking out and saying that your government shouldn’t be threatening to burn people at the stake as a means of converting them. But the reason why that circumstance even exists is because church and state were part of the same institution.
Again, irrespective of your religious background, I’m pretty sure we all agree that these are TERRIBLE ideas. Governments shouldn’t threaten to burn people at the stake if they don’t convert religions. And they shouldn’t justify political exploits in foreign countries by saying they’re evangelizing to the people they subsequently kidnap and sell for money. Fortunately, in America, we’ve decided to separate Church and State, and we more or less made that shift in the late 1870’s – early 1880’s. But here’s the kicker: this only works with careful attention and some level of objectivity. The reason why is many American politicians are religious (Christian or otherwise). And many American voters are religious (Christian and otherwise). And so now you have a situation where religious politicians are voted for by religious Americans, but we’re still trying to keep church and state separate.
To be clear, I DON’T THINK THIS IS A BAD THING. I think that tension for politically active Americans is perfectly normal. Because we’re balancing different aspects of our identity: as citizens of the United States of America, we take a big interest in public welfare; as members of various religious traditions, we’re interested in living out personal values that are near and dear to our heart. That felt tension is perfectly normal on some level. But again, this only works if we’re willing to pay close attention and exercise some level of objectivity.
So, when I hear Christians say something to the effect of, “I’m against LGBT rights because the Bible says…“, I think to myself, “What does that have to do with law-abiding, taxpaying citizens being able to exercise their rights?” I think that line of thinking perfectly illustrates my point. The government isn’t responsible for serving Christian Americans, the government is responsible for serving all Americans. Period. And a lot of those Americans aren’t Christian, and quite frankly, they don’t really want anything to do with Christianity, so let them live in peace.
In my opinion, I don’t think we’ve adequately separated church and state. I think that’s part of the reason why we still have “In God We Trust” all over our money. The funny thing about that is in Brazil, they have a 100-foot monument of Jesus called Christ the Redeemer. I’ve been; it’s beautiful, by the way. In America, we have a 130-foot, multimillion-dollar monument of a Roman goddess, and her monument has become a synonymous symbol of American culture around the world. Tell me again about America’s wholesome Christian values? People fly from all around the world to come see our multimillion-dollar monument of a Roman goddess. Like, can you look me in my eyes with a straight face and say that we’re a Christian nation? Spending approximately $6 million in maintenance fees every year to preserve a statue of a Roman goddess?
Come on, be serious.
I’m in full support of taking “In God We Trust” off of all our money. I think it’s confusing. Aside from the fact that having a machine stamp “In God We Trust” on your money probably isn’t the best way to show your trust… if we elected a Buddhist president tomorrow and they wanted to put “In Buddha We Trust” on our money, most Americans would find that unacceptable. Somehow though, nobody thinks twice about leaving “In God We Trust” on our money.
It’s a double standard. So, take it off. It’s best for everyone.
I can still trust in God even if it’s not printed on our money. That’s not an unfair attack on my religion. Nobody is mistreating me or assaulting my rights. It should have happened a long time ago. We need to keep church and state separate.
It’s best for everyone.
I think it was the right decision to take religious ordinance out of public schools (ie. required Bible reading, prayer, etc.), and I say that as a Christian. I don’t have any kids, but if I came home from work one day and my son or daughter told me they have a 20-minute, mandatory reading of the Quran, that would be unacceptable to me.
Not because I have any anti-Muslim sentiment.
Not because I think Muslim Americans deserve any less than what I have as a Christian American.
But because if I pay taxes to support a public school, for all Americans, why is my child being required to read a religious text for a religion we don’t even practice at home? It’s not a Muslim school it’s a public school. On what planet does that make sense?
If you want to read the Quran at school, you should read the Quran at school. If you want to pray to Allah at school, you should pray to Allah at school. But it shouldn’t be required. I’ll be honest, anything otherwise just sounds absurd to me.
Yet and still, Christians talk about this as if something has been unfairly taken away from them. “They took God out of schools,” they say. That’s 100% false. You’re still allowed to practice Christianity at school. You’re just not REQUIRED to practice Christianity at school. How is that an unfair attack on your religion? How is it unfair that people aren’t required to participate in your religion?
It reminds me of a well-known quote: “When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression”. Admittedly, as a self-proclaimed Christian nation, I think Christians in America have had a great deal of privilege (although I feel that’s changing). Indeed, I think to say a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their right to get married because of your religious tradition perfectly epitomizes this.
There are lots of good reason for, or against, creating or dissolving a state or federal law. “The Bible says, x, y, and z” is not one of those reasons, because church and state are separate institutions.
The Bible says, “let your yes be yes and your no be no” (Matthew 5:37). It further makes the point on being a person of your word (Deuteronomy 23:23). If we’re going to say we’ve separated church and state, then we need to be true to that and separate church and state. The purpose of the American government is not to proclaim and advance the Gospel message. That’s what Christians are supposed to do (Matthew 28:18-20). The purpose of the American government is to serve and advance the public welfare of the American people.
For us to say we’ve separated church and state but simultaneously look to advance Christian views while oppressing others is NOT consistent with honoring who we claim to be as a country. And to be clear, who we are on an individual level is not the same as who we are on a country level. That is, it’s entirely possible to believe in a nation where all men and women can freely exercise their liberties and rights, while also believing in a set of principles to live your life by, as described according to your religious tradition.
Those are completely independent of one another.
As a closing note, because I know this is running long, it’s a bit ironic (and disappointing, really) to see Christians advocate and champion so many social causes… we want to do fundraisers for the poor, and we want to do clothing drives for the homeless, and we want to fly all over the world and volunteer in orphanages and take care of sick people… all of these are commendable, but what I gather from a lot of Christians is that they’re perfectly fine with some people’s oppression as long as they feel like Christians are coming out ahead. They’re perfectly fine with some people’s oppression, if they can convince themselves it’s in the name of Christianity. They’re perfectly fine with some people oppression, as long as Christianity comes out on top.
And you may say, “Oh, well that’s really dramatic,” but I disagree. I think it stings, but I think it’s completely true. Because it’s not out of the ordinary for people who subscribe to various religions to believe something is right or wrong. Every religion does that. Christianity isn’t unique in that regard. But the moment you say, “This is a group of law-abiding, tax paying citizens, but I don’t want them to have the rights of everybody else who lives in America, because of MY religious views.” that’s beyond religion… now we’re talking about oppression. Now we’re talking about hierarchy. Now we’re talking about discrimination. Now we’re talking about authoritarianism. You can be devoutly committed to a religious tradition without all that extra stuff… LOL, like WAT???
That’s not the way the American government is supposed to work. And that’s not the way Christianity is supposed to work.
I’ll stand by Proposition 1: America separated church and state in the late 1800’s, so the Bible, or any religious text for that matter, isn’t really a strong basis for (or against) introducing a policy or removing it.
Can I be honest? Time will tell.
Some random thoughts,
Nnam’