Separation of Church and State

By ED ALLARD, Preacher, Monticello Church of Christ
In last week’s column “From the Pastor’s Study” John Brown of Monticello First United Methodist Church offered an alternative view from that stated by me in my article in the July 20 issue of The Monticello News.

His use of the phrase “Separation of Church and State” presents a problem. It presents a problem because the phrase is used in at least two very different ways.

But I want to make it clear that I do not in any way question the love that Mr. Brown has for our country or our Constitution or for me because of his difference in viewpoint.

Until the 1960s the phrase was used predominately to mean that the Church and State were separate and that the State had no control over the Church and could not by “respecting an establishment of religion,” designate by law any religious denomination to be the official State religion.

Since then the expression separation of Church and State has come to be used by many to mean something entirely different. Different especially among those I spoke of in my article to which he referred. It is being used to mean that there should be nothing of a religious nature in any area of government, and they are doing their best to remove all that they can, systematically.

That is what I oppose. I do not advocate any laws respecting an establishment of religion, meaning that the Federal government is not to designate by law any religious denomination as the official State religion, as he seems to think I meant.

I too am glad that we have a statement in our Constitution that prohibits the making of laws respecting an establishment of religion.

However, to use the phrase “Separation of Church and State” is to use the language of those who are opposing morality and religious matters in our country, and gives cause in the minds of the uninformed to believe that there should be no religious views in any area of government, and especially in our laws.

That is the language used by those who approve of the immorality of abortion and same-sex marriages. That is the language used by those seeking to force acceptance of those engaged in sexual perversion upon the nation’s workplaces and teach acceptance of it in public schools.
That is the language used by those seeking to keep out of government areas any mention of religion, as well as the Bible and prayer in public schools.

Mr. Brown stated, “Our constitution says that the government cannot prohibit the ‘free exercise’ of religion.” Then strangely, he shows that the government has done just that when it comes to prayer in public schools, or putting up a public nativity scene, or posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings. He could have named several other things.

Mr. Brown states that “To be a Christian means one should be a better citizen. We are called to be the conscience of our society. We are called to proclaim the word of God and witness our faith to a world that needs to hear our story.” I certainly agree.

I believe that means we should seek to do those things in all areas of life as a citizen, including the workplace, in government areas, including the public schools, as well as in the assemblies of the church or in the private exercise of our religion.

I believe that a better citizen is one who advocates and upholds morality and their religion in one’s lifestyle and speaks out for it and against immorality in lifestyle and laws that restrict religious freedom in public schools, the workplace and in government affairs, and that is not opposition to the separation of church and state, in its proper sense.

If upholding the sanctity of life, family and marriage and religion in public affairs has not been considered as opposition to the separation of church and state before now, why should it be so now?