In a biting editorial, written for the conservative Washington Times, long-time Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) suggests a novel and literal approach to the First Amendment, arguing that the wall of separation between the state and the church is non-existent despite what the Supreme Court has to say about it. Hatch notes that Thomas Jefferson’s position on religious freedom was embodied in his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but that his approach to keeping the state and the church separate was a minority opinion at the time. The more dominant view, according to Hatch, was John Adams’ model, which instituted a “mild and equitable establishment of religion” that enshrined “Christian piety and virtue.”…. According to Hatch, since the 1st Amendment specifically states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” only one “actor” is constrained: the U.S. Congress.
Amongst all the chatter about threats to the Homeland and those who would wish to destroy us because they hate our freedom, one very large and looming threat is being roundly ignored: Congress. Within the 535 members of Congress, there’s a sizable and vocal minority who believe that this country should be ruled by biblical priniciples (that I suspect they themselves would determine). The desire to create a theocracy based on “Christian values,” or “Biblical principles,” or whatever descriptor might apply, is neither new nor particularly original. What IS new and original is that there are so many in positions of power (Orrin Hatch being one of the biggest offenders) who’d like nothing better than to turn this country into a remake of The Handmaid’s Tale, in which Conservative White Christian males exercise unquestioned and unchecked power and are able to create their own special form of Christian tyranny.
I could go on about the warped, sick theology behind this movement and the thought processes of people like Sen. Hatch. The fact is, thought, that this is far more about power and social control than it ever could be about the teachings of Jesus Christ. It would seem the Pharisees firmly desire to grasp power and run the asylum.
“On its face, this language affects only one actor, Congress, not states and local governments, and not individual citizens,” Hatch wrote, asserting that the 1st Amendment “…simply limited Congress’ ability to choose a preferred religious sect. This restriction on favoring one particular sect over another at the federal level made eminent sense for a new nation composed of states with a wide variety of religious traditions and approaches to established religion.”
I could go on at some length about the anti-democratic nature of Sen. Hatch’s editorial and the arrogance in assuming that the majority religion should have the right to impose its own form of tyranny because there’s strength in numbers. The truth is that there’s plenty of source documentation from early in this country’s history to demonstrate that the intent of the Founding Fathers was the creation of a secular republic that respected religious freedom. There’s Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists and 1796’s Treaty of Tripoli, both of which confirm the Founders’ commitment to secular governance. There’s more, but both of these document amply support the argument that the Founding Fathers’ desire and intent was the creation of a secular democracy.
That Sen. Hatch would choose to willfully ignore this historical reality is distressing…but not particularly surprising. Authoritarian Conservatives such as Hatch are well-renowned for cherry-picking evidence and ignoring what they find inconvenient to their argument.
Hatch states that the now widely-held belief in the separation between the government and churches became an article of faith when the Supreme Court ruled in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, where both the majority and the dissenting opinions cited the “wall of separation between church and state”
“The erroneous wall-of-separation doctrine narrows the role of religion in public discourse, fueling the view that religion is a private matter rather than a fundamental precept of American civil society and leading many to fall prey to the disturbing claim that religious freedom doesn’t extend much further than the church door,” Hatch wrote.
“The erroneous wall-of-separation doctrine” is neither erroneous nor limiting of the role of religion in public discourse. It’s simply recognition of a now almost 240-year-old well-established historical tradition. Let’s not forget that this country was founded by those fleeing what they perceived as religious persecution in their native England. The thought that their descendants are now desirous of creating their own special form of religious tyranny should chill any American who truly understand the origins of their country.
America is neither the personal playground nor the property of Conservative White Christian males. It doens’t belong to the adherents of ANY faith tradition. America, despite what Sen. Hatch and the rest of the American Taliban may argue, is NOT a Christian nation. It’s a nation blessed with a system of secular governance designed to respect religious freedom (Ed. note: “Religious freedom” means ALL religions; it’s not applicable only to those who call themselves “Christian.”).
The separation of Church and State is what keeps America from coming to resemble a more affluent version of Pakistan, Iran, or Somalia. If those who, like Sen. Hatch, believe the separation of Church and State not to be defensible are allowed to prevail, I’d submit that we’d quickly find out what- and, more importantly, WHO- the real threat to our freedom is.
When Conservatives do it, it’s patriotism. When anyone else (i.e.- Liberals and/or non-Christians) do it, it’s the worst form of religious tyranny imaginable. THAT is Sen. Hatch’s vision for America.
