Epilogue: THEOCRATIC REVISION AT ITS WORST
NEUTRALITY VS THEOCRACY
By Matthew 5
Assisted by BibleBelted, and SweetPea
"Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
- Abe Fortas, Epperson v. Arkansas , 393 U.S. 97, 1968. [1]
You'd think that devoutly religious people would be in favor of governmental neutrality when it comes to religion. Granted, we have the First Amendment religion clause which supposedly protects us from an established national church and which protects our religious freedom, but governmental neutrality (separation of church and state, if you prefer) is the mechanism that enforces our the religion clause. I don't know about you but I find it very strange that the most religious people in this country are the same people who are so obsessively determined to undermine the method by which we enforce the religion clause. Considering the fact that under normal circumstances the political/religious pendulum swings back and forth, from left to right and back again, one would assume that the religious right in this country would want to maintain government neutrality to protect their own religious freedom.
Roger Williams (December 21, 1603-April 1, 1684) a figure heard from to infrequently these days, understood this argument very well. A separatist preacher, Williams was banished by the the Massachusetts General Court on September 13, 1635 for advocating religious tolerance and for criticizing the Massachusetts Bay Charter. Initially considered himself a Baptist, but as he aged, Williams revealed himself as one of those rare people who becomes more open minded with age, eventually becoming a nondenominational Christian ( i.e. a seeker). Ironically, while the radical religious right attempts to tear down the wall between church and state, it was Roger Williams whose use of similar terminology way well have inspired Thomas Jefferson's use of the term. Wrote Williams
"When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World." [2]
Note the similarities between the terms "hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world," as used by Williams and the term "Wall of Separation" [3] that Jefferson used more than a century and a half later. Contrary to what the radical religious right would have us believe, the truth of the matter is that both, Williams and Rogers believed that a Separation of Church and State was necessary to protect both, religion and government. We have already read what Jefferson thought about establishment in earlier contributions to this series, but what did Williams have to offer? Well, to be precise, Williams to believed that a marriage of church and state was detrimental to both, the religious and civil authorities and that it was better to keep the two apart. In the preface to The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Cause of Conscience, Williams issued "Twelve Arguments for Religious Tolerance."
"First, that the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of Protestants and Papists, spilt in the wars of present and former ages, for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.
"Secondly, pregnant scriptures and arguments are throughout the work proposed against the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience."
"Thirdly, satisfactory answers are given to scriptures, and objections produced by Mr. Calvin, Beza, Mr. Cotton, and the ministers of the New English churches and others former and later, tending to prove the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience.
"Fourthly, the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance under the altar.
"Fifthly, all civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.
"Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God.
"Seventhly, the state of the Land of Israel, the kings and people thereof in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and no pattern nor president for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.
"Eighthly, God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.
"Ninthly, in holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the Jew's conversion to Christ.
"Tenthly, an enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
"Eleventhly, the permission of other consciences and worships than a state professeth only can (according to God) procure a firm and lasting peace (good assurance being taken according to the wisdom of the civil state for uniformity of civil obedience from all forts).
"Twelfthly, lastly, true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile..." [4]
"Unfortunately, too few people seem to be aware of this — or, if they are, they don't consider the risk to be high enough to give up the benefits of state endorsement. This may seem like a reasonable gamble, given America's history as having a predominantly Christian population. It's an unwise gamble, though, given how much variety there is within American Christianity and how far religious pluralism has advanced in recent decades.
"There are people who believe that government 'neutrality' is the same as government "hostility," but exactly the opposite is actually the case. If the government is not neutral, then the government is taking sides. If the government is taking sides on behalf of one group or belief, then it is also taking sides against the alternative groups or beliefs. Perhaps it isn't the intention of the government to send the message that those alternatives are worse, but it does so necessarily when it signals that the chosen option is favored by endorsing, supporting, or promoting it. That, in turn, qualifies as a form of "hostility." [5]
But what the Dominionists fail to recognize is that theocracy, by its very nature, is a self destructive concept. How many nations, past theocracies, have destroyed the very nation that it took over? Theocracy, if nothing else, is a recipe for both religious and civil corruption. In the end it contaminates everything it touches. It stifles scientific curiosity; degrades the technological advancements that a nation needs to survive; and through internal violence in the form of inquisitions and through external violence through religious wars of conquest, bleeds the theocratic nation dry. That's a hell of a price to pay for imposing a particular religious view on other people.
"The sad reality of Dominionism is that in order to achieve power and control over other men some sort of accord or treaty must be established with the world system. Biblical Christians of the devotional evangelical variety are fully aware of this danger. They see any bid for power and authority in this world as a very dangerous move. The gathering and the 'unity' that is achieved by this means is artificial, cheap, and short-lived. The reason for this is quite simple. Any bid for power is based on compromise with the spirit behind that power. Dominionism is achieved by playing games with the systems of this world. And when they use the ways of this world to establish authority the Church that becomes established finally ends up running counter to true Christianity.
In closing, we would like to leave you with the following thoughts.
"I speak not in terms of the multitude of all nations, which have their ebings and flowings in religion ( as the longest sword and strongest arm of flesh carries it), but I speak of conscience, a permission fixed in the mind and heart of man, which enforceth him to judge (as Paul said of himself a persecutor) and to do so and so with respect to God, His Worship
"This conscience is found in all mankind, more or less: in Jews, Turks, Papists, Protestants, Pagans...
"The maker and Searcher of our hearts knows with what bitterness I write, as with bitterness of the soul I have heard such language as to proceed from yourself and others, who formerly have fled from ( with crying out against) persecutors: "You will say this is your conscience; you will say you are persecuted, and you are persecuted for your conscience. No, you are conventiclers, heretics, blasphemers, seducers. You deserve to be hanged; rather than one shall be waiting to hang him. I will hang him myself. I am resolved not to leave an heretic om the country. I had rather so many whores and whore mongers and thieves come among us.
"Oh Sir, you cannot forget what language and dialect this is, whether the Gardiners and Bonners, both former and latter, used to all that bowed not the state golden image of what conscience soever they were. And indeed, Sir, if the most High be pleased to awaken you to render unto His holy Majesty His die praises, in you truly broken-heated confessions and supplications, you will then proclaim to all the world, that what profession soever you made of the lamb, yet these confessions could not proceed from the Dragon's mouth..
"Oh remember it is dangerous combat for potsherds of the earth to fight with their dreadful potter. It is a dismal battle for poor naked feet to kick against the pricks; it is a dreadful voice from the King of kings and Lord of Lords: 'Endicott, Endicott, why huntest though me? why imprisonest thou me? why finest, so bloodily whippest? why wouldst thou (did not I hold thy bloody hands) hang and burn me?' Yea, Sir, I beseech you remember that it is a dangerous thing to put this to the may-be, to the venture or hazard of the possibility. 'Is it possible," may you well say, 'hat since I hunt, I hunt not the life of my Savior and the blood of the Lamb of God: I have fought against many several sorts of consciences; it is beyond all possibility and hazard that I have not fought against God, that I have not persecuted Jesus in some of them?'
"Sir, I must be humbly bold to say that 'tis impossible for any man or men to maintain their Christ by the sword and to worship a true Christ, to fight against all consciences opposite to theirs, and not to fight against God in some of them and to hunt after the life of the true Lord Jesus Christ. Oh remember, wither your principles and consciences must in time and opportunity force you!.
"Sir I know I have presumed much upon your weighty affairs and thoughts; I end with an humble cry to the Father of mercies that you may take David's counsel, and silently commune with your own heart upon your bed. reflect upon your own spirit, and believe Him that saith it to his over zealous disciples, 'You know not what spirit you are of'; that no sleep may seize upon your eyes, nor slumber upon your eyelids, until your serious thoughts have seriously, calm;y, and unchangeably (through help from Christ Jesus) fixed,
"First on a moderation towards the spirits and consciences of all mankind, merely differing from or opposing with only religious and spiritual opposition,
"Secondly, a deep and cordial resolution (in these wonderful, searching, disputing, and dissenting times) to search, to listen, to pray, to mast, and more fearfully, more tremblingly to enquire what the holy pleasure and the holy mysteries of the most Holy are: in whom I humbly deserve to be.
(A letter by Roger Williams from 1651 from Roger Williams to Massachusetts Governor John Endicott on the occasion of the arrest of of three Baptists in Massachusetts:) [15]
[1] From: About: Atheism/Agnosticism
Abe Fortas About Government Neutrality Towards Religion
Copyright 2007 About Inc
http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/fortas01.htm
[2] From: Ronald Bruce Meyer.com
Roger Williams Banished: 1635
Separation of Church and State
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0913almanac.htm
[3] From: THE U.S. Constitution Online
Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter
By Steve Mount
Copyright 1995-2007 by Steve Mount
Last modified January 30, 2007
Accessed May 16, 2007
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0913almanac.htm
[4] From: The Constitution Society
http://www.constitution.org/index.shtml (home page)
Article titled: "A Plea for Religious Liberty by Roger Williams
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/religlib.htm
Copyright 1994-2005 by the Constitution Society
Last updated November 18, 2006
[5] From: About: Atheism/Agnosticism
Abe Fortas on Government Neutrality Towards Religion
Copyright 2007 by About Inc
http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/fortas01.htm
[15] From: A Documentary History of Religion in America to the Civil War (Second Edition)
Edited by Edwin S. Gaustad
Pages 114-117
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids
Copyright 1982, 1993 William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company