Religion and Politics

The founders of the United States were wise in creating the separation of church and state. They were far from being anti-religion for nearly all attended church services from time to time. Church attendance and religious discussions in public were common practices. This did not mean that like today people of different faith backgrounds readily accepted one another as friends, co-workers and married across denomination backgrounds, and spoke well of denominations that were outside their own stream.

The culture in the 1770s and 1780s was vastly different than our cultural of broad acceptance of people of other Christian denominations. Marrying outside one’s denomination was far from being widely accepted. A Baptist marrying a Roman Catholic created a family scandal. Baptists viewed Methodists with suspicion. People tended to live, work and socialize within their faith tradition.

It was from this cultural milieu that those who signed the Declaration of Independence and shaped the American Constitution came. Coming from a diverse array of faiths, and some non-practicing any faith, they cautioned against the mixing of politics and religion. While they recognized that value faith played in the daily lives of themselves, family, friends and neighbors, they were also well aware of the problems that are created when one’s personal faith is a highly dominating factor in determining public policies. They were unlike the French revolutionaries who, in reacting against the abuses of the dominant religion of their culture, were anti-religion and created national policy that was strikingly anti-religion.

In shaping the national documents and in setting forth public policy the founders set aside their own religion’s doctrinal positions. Admittedly their religious believes shaped their thinking and moved their hearts to be more passionate on some issues than another, but they did not seek to entrench specific and narrow religious dogma or statements into public policy. For example, while all were of the Christian faith in background, and most in practice, they did not enshrine into the founding documents or in early documents that Sunday was to be a non-work day or speak in any manner to compel people to attend church, or that Christian values should be taught by the state to its citizens. They knew from oberservation and experience that when religion battles to be a dominate voice in shaping public policy in general that the consequences for the community, nation and citizenry as a whole has detrimental consequences.

Instead, these Christian men, many with strong religious convictions, established a religious neutral nation, a nation where people of different faiths can and should participate in public discussion and the shaping of public policy without any one faith stream dominating another. In an era when there is much pandering by various politicians to those of a particular religious persuasion, it is worth recalling the significance of the United States being founded as to be a nation that is religiously neutral and tolerant.

Healthcare Unconstitutional

On of the arguments being made against the American health care reform is that it is an unconstitutional act by the Federal Government. It is argued that the Constitution does not explicitly grant the Federal Government authority over health care. It is true that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government authority over health care just as it does not give the Federal Government authority over a host of matters such as the transportation and telecommunication system or over employment and safety practices.

Hence, federal authority is non-existent to regulate regarding mine safety changes that have literally saved hundreds of lives a year, pollution of the water and air, the air transportation system and funding of roads. It also means that the federal government has overstepped its authority to set mandatory standards regarding automobile safety. I for one would not travel by air or even feel comfortable driving my vehicles above 30 mph without the assurance of Federal regulations and processes from air traffic control, aircraft maintenance, and safe automobiles.

We must remember that there is a distinction between that which is prohibited versus that which is not explicitly addressed. Involvement and regulation of health care is not prohibited the Constitution.

Advocates who argue that health care reform by the Federal Government is unconstitutional are by extension arguing against the Federal Government’s involvement legislating regarding the airwaves and Internet content. Many of these same advocates are calling for the Feds to put in place regulations to put further limits upon things such as pornography. Many of those who are using the unconstitutional argument also call upon the same government to outlaw abortions. If we accepted their unconstitutional argument then they are calling upon the government to do an unconstitutional act, albeit on a different issue, as the Constitution is silent on the pro-life vs pro-choice/abortion debate.

We must remember that the Constitution was penned in one age and in what the authors could envision happening in the future. No one has advocated that the authors of the Constitution were prophets or clairvoyants who foresaw a society far beyond their own. They could not foresee the abortion debate. Abortion was rare and very dangerous in the 18th century, so much so that it was known only to a small handful of people. They saw the world within the national and international political realities of the day and the technology that they could envision of the horizon. They knew of health care, but it was a crude undeveloped system. Hospitals were rare. People lived and died in their homes using home remedies. They did not foresee the modern transportation and telecommunication processes.

That said, they did understand that society and the world evolves. Hence, they empowered a process that encouraged debated and a process of designing laws and regulations to address new challenges. They designed a government that is called to be flexible and creative in addressing modern issues based upon the founding principles.

One of the other arguments that some grasp to argue against the current legislation is that it has passed because of add ons that were done to secure a person's votes. The American political system is not a Parliamentary system where legislation is focused and rarely includes special riders. From the beginning the American system is about trading of favors whereby one member of Congress will support another in return for his/her support for their proposals or for a rider to be included. Hence in the United States to gain a vote it is it not uncommon for a rider to a transportation bill to have a special grant for a company or public work in a particular district. What happened in getting the 60 Senate votes to prohibit a filibuster is such a common event that rare is a bill passed that does not have several riders, a good number of which have little to do with the particular bill.