Church And State

Church and State
G Sakamoto

Election season is upon us, perhaps it might be interesting to consider some of the influences of religion on politics. Although, the phrase �separation of church and state� is often cited, this phrase is not found in the Constitution but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association of Connecticut dated January 1, 1802. In this letter Jefferson is responding to concerns expressed by the Danbury association that the state of Connecticut regarded their exercise of religious practices as privileges granted by the state rather than fundamental rights. In Jefferson�s reply he refers to the Constitution�s statement that the Congress �should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,� then continues �thus building a wall of separation between church and state.� (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/)

This wall separates the religious preference of a group or individual from the regulations of government. Only where the activities of the individual threatens society or the rights of others, should the government intervene to protect the well being of the community as a whole. What constitutes a threat to society�s well being is not always clear. The content of the words of the Constitution must be regularly contemplated and its meaning kept vital. With respect to the support or suppression of other religious beliefs and activities government must remain neutral.

As Americans we face questions of instituting religious convictions into law. It would be reasonable to have an individual�s values, religious or otherwise, inform decisions regarding the establishment of law. Whether to support abortion or gay marriages for instance, our religious convictions influence how we understand these issues. The experiences that shape an individual�s values are carried into the decisions regarding law. In a democracy laws result from representative legislation. Representatives bring with them their experiences and values shaping their views on the implementation of law. To expect otherwise would be unreasonable.

The law, however, is not for any one group. It should protect the religious expression of all groups. If the argument for the establishment of a particular law rest solely on the merits of a religious perspective then that law if enacted would represent the religious values of a particular group. Others who do not share similar values would be relegated to a secondary status and eventually experience restrictions on expression. The law must therefore remain neutral to provide for the protection of all.

The US Supreme Court case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (June 21, 1971) established a method to determined violations of government into religious affairs.

�Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.�

We are often concerned about discussing politics in our temples because of our status as a tax-exempted organization. However, tax-exempt religious groups can express opinions about issues but not endorse or oppose individual candidates.

�The prohibition against political campaign activity has been in effect for more than half a century and bars certain tax-exempt organizations from intervening on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates. However, these organizations can engage in advocating for or against issues and, to a limited extent, ballot initiatives or other legislative activities.� IR-2008-61, April 17, 2008

As Jodo Shinshu Buddhists our exercise of religious expression is also protect by the Constitution and law. As members of our society we hold a responsibility to participate in the conversation the guide our nation. Assuring that our rights as well as the rights of others continue to be protected. What we say and do in our temples and religious centers have importance in how law is legislated and interpreted. But we must be participants in the process for our voices to be heard. Often we are concerned about how political views can divide a group. We should, however, trust that the common concerns we share for one another far out weight the differences that might arise. These differences should not deminish the value of the persons who hold them rather add to the richness of our communities.