Commentary: Government has to uphold separation of church and state – Fredericksburg.com

By Katherine B. Waddell

HAS RELIGION become too much of a factor in politics? Have our religious leaders, and our elected and appointed leaders, become so involved in politics to a point that they no longer are able to separate church and state? Are people in positions of power imposing their personal religious beliefs onto all of us?

These questions all pose disturbing scenarios and warrant serious scrutiny. But speaking in opposition to those who impose their personal religious beliefs onto others is not easy because it can be misunderstood as being anti-religion. It actually is a decision in support of religious freedom and of a long-held American freedom: separation of church and state.

In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson wrote, Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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.

People are also reading

The role of religion in politics has dramatically changed over the past 50 years (Jan. 22, 1973, being the day of the Roe v. Wade decision). In 2022, religion has played a role of epic proportions in dictating public policy and opinions at both state and federal levels.

Freedom of and from religion is one of those distinct qualities that makes our country great. Americans cherish that freedom whether they are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, fundamentalist, evangelical Christian, Mormon, agnostic, atheist, or other.

Has religion ever been an issue for voters?

In 1928, New York Gov. Al Smith reportedly lost his presidential bid due to his Catholic religion; and in 1960, that question again came up. Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, also was questioned about his religion. Many feared he would be unable to separate his religious beliefs from policy.

To address those fears, Kennedy spoke to a group of ministers in Houston, saying: It is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe infor that should be important only to mebut what kind of America I believe in. He continued, I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ...

Does the candidates religion matter? It should not, but much has changed since 1960, back when many feared Kennedy would make policy decisions based on his personal religious doctrine. Today, that fear has become reality.

It is widely known that some elected or appointed officials at federal and state levels have initiated policies that impose their personal religious beliefs.

These include decisions on birth control, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, sex education, gay rights, and end-of-life issues.

It began with Pat Robertsons Christian Coalition and Jerry Falwell Sr.s Moral Majority movements.

Newer groups call themselves Value Voters or members of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, but their goal remains the same. Most prominently, Don McGahnWhite House counsel under former President Donald Trump and a board member of the Federalist Societyhelped select federal judges with the goal of establishing public policy and opinions that mirrored his own religious views.

Religious freedom is in the eye of the beholder. Religious leaders praise legislators who impose their religious beliefs onto women by restricting abortion rights.

But they also claim their religious freedom is at stake when government mandates contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans for employees.

Whose religious freedom is at stake?

You might be Jewish or Mormon and not want to be forced to live by the Catholic doctrine; just as if you are Catholic or Baptist, you might not want to live by the Mormon or Jewish doctrines.

It is not the role of government to promote policy that imposes one groups personal religious beliefs on all people.

Presently, the majority religious groups of elected or appointed officials who are imposing their religious views include Catholics, Protestants, and evangelical or fundamentalist Christians.

What if the predominate religious group of people in power was Muslims, Mormons or Scientologists? What if there was talk of imposing Sharia law? One might think it a ridiculous idea but many thought overturning Roe was a ridiculous idea, too.

Should public policy be established on the basis of an elected or appointed officials religious doctrine?

Of course not, but examples have been happening right under our noses.

This has happened because we didnt call it out and we didnt heed Kennedys 1960 warning: Today I may be the victimbut tomorrow it may be you...

Katherine B. Waddell, IRichmond, is a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates. She previously served as special adviser on womens issues for former Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Contact her at kbwaddell@comcast.net.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read more from the original source:

Commentary: Government has to uphold separation of church and state - Fredericksburg.com