The Gap Betwixt the Church & State
Thought the separation between church and state was set in stone in 1787? Think again!
The Supreme Court’s efforts to chip away at this barrier may soon result in reducing it to rubble. Recent cases have focused on the religious prerogatives of those who feel they may be “compromised” by participating in an open secular society.
Ostensibly, their objections focus on not wanting to be forced to participate in a religious ceremony with those they regard as sinful. In fact, everyone agrees that religious institutions can govern their own rituals.
But how far should we extend the marriage ceremony? To the clothes worn during the event itself, or also those worn at the reception? Is a cake really part of the sacred ceremony? Or the printing of wedding (or funeral) announcements?
And what about the honeymoon? Should a travel planner be allowed to refuse to book a trip for a same-sex couple?
What this is really about is the right to discriminate against people one considers sinners, as the current website case clearly reveals. This is a total rejection of the basic notion of religious freedom as a two-way street: you’re free to practice your religion but can’t impose it on others.
And this rejection poses a very serious threat to our secular society. It goes back to the original concept of religious “tolerance,” that implied one group (the dominant one, often linked to the state) should tolerate a minority’s non-conforming worship. That actually reflected a power relationship that implied one group was in the position to allow another’s behavior (or not).
Those now claiming their religious rights are being trampled go back even further, rejecting the very notion of a secular society. They believe society should be based on (their) religious principles, and try to enlist the power of the state to preserve and advance these principles throughout the population.
They harken back to the views of the Puritan Nathaniel Ward, who argued vociferously in his 1647 book that the objective of both church and state was to coerce virtue.
No one is forcing conservative Christians to marry someone of the same sex. They want to prevent others from doing so. Ditto for contraception, extra-marital sex, abortion, and other behavior they don’t want to be tolerated. And they think it’s up to them (the anointed by God) to decide what’s to be tolerated.
So far, the battle has been waged primarily by conservative Christians against non-heterosexuals. But what if their approach was turned against them? What if liberals claimed the right to discriminate against people they consider sinful? After all, defining sin is up to the person doing the discriminating.
Conceivably, a store owner could refuse to serve people who eat shellfish, or consume any type of meat, or wear fur. Or a filling station could refuse to pump gas for someone who owns a gun. (But wait! Gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution. Yes, but so is same-sex marriage, and apparently that doesn’t protect you from someone else’s religious sensibilities.)
In fact, you could fervently believe that opposing same-sex marriage is sinful. Or contributing to a particular candidate or political party. It’s all in the souls of the observer.
Why not try some of these reverse-discrimination options and see how the rejectors respond, and how the courts react.