It’s the most wonderful time of the week: Tea Time™. Disclaimer: This tea was heated on a burner of political angst. And, like always, I’d rather burn my tongue than hold it.
Repeat after me readers: as long as we have our current Pledge of Allegiance, money, and Republican Party, then we will never have, in a modern sense, true separation of Church and State.
First, let’s define what “separation of church and state”, historically means. The phrase is usually traced back to a letter by Thomas Jefferson. In said letter Jefferson wrote, “”I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” In other words, American laws should not be based off of religion. However, the phrase has since then been thought of and used to represent an ideal government that is free of religious ties, not only in laws, but also symbols and public statements. This is not to say, one president couldn’t say “God Bless”, but rather it is to say, that the president shouldn’t speak for the entire nation/government when saying “God Bless”.
The most obvious infringement of separation of church and state, in both, a historical and modern sense is currently enforced laws that are obviously rooted in religious reasons. These laws are so common they even have a name: blue laws. An example of such a law in our very own state is Indiana’s ban on all alcohol sales, not including restaurants and bars, on Sundays.
The second barrier between America and separation of church and state, this time in a modern sense, is the amount of Christian references in America’s commonly used symbols. Non-religious Americans can’t look at American currency without seeing a religious reference.
Non – religious Americans can be, and are, scolded by teachers if they do not pledge their allegiance to a nation that is “under God”. Sure, it’s not explicitly against Jefferson, but surely it’s close enough to be recognized as a problem.
Which leads me to the final, and most debatable main barrier: the majority Christian Republican Party. I truly do not believe that Republican representatives can objectively vote and enforce laws, nor do I believe that most of the voters could objectively look at a candidate, that isn’t religious/identifies with a different religion, and vote/ judge them based off of merits alone. That being said, I do recognize this is a problem in all parties; however, I truly believe it is most prevalent in those who identify as Republican. This barrier is very subjective so I am leaving it up for you to decide. Do you think an openly Agnostic candidate would win a Republican primary, or even more dubious, do you think an openly Muslim candidate would win the primary? Do you believe that, if religion was not considered at all, that gay marriage would have been such a big debate? Why was the Obamas’ generic holiday card, rather than a Christmas family card, so problematic for so many people? And finally, is our mainly red nation, going to move towards or backwards in the next four years in terms of separation of church and state, in both, the historical and modern sense?
I think you know the answer. I know I do. Which concludes this week’s Tea Time™ .
“When one is thirsty for truth, the tea will brew itself.”