ELECTION DAY

​     Today is election day – so I won’t discuss the election. Rather, I will discuss something foundational to our nation. We live in constant danger of forgetting this crucial founding principle which sets the United States apart from other nations – all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, including but not limited to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our government is neither the source nor the guarantor of these rights. In fact, as President Obama correctly observed – our constitution is something in the way of a charter of negative liberties – that is, it primarily defines the things government CANNOT do (to us) in such a free society where our rights descend from a higher source. Long before President Obama, Thomas Paine stressed the difference between government and society regarding society as a great blessing and government as, at best, a necessary evil that, over time, tends to become an intolerable evil. I always recall the tag line from Paine’s discussion – I tell you; the palaces of kings are built over the bowers of paradise!

     Many struggle here with what seems an inherent contradiction. On the one hand we believe it necessary to maintain a wall of separation between church and state and forbid the establishment of an official state religion. But on the other hand, our founding principle is based on the notion that we are endowed with basic human rights by our creator. A few thoughts.

1. Although the knife does cut both ways – the major concern in the separation of church and state was to keep the government from interfering with freedom of religion. Free will in such matters being among the rights granted by God, the government needs to keep its mitts off! Go back the original conversations regarding the Danbury Baptists. The government must neither favor nor disfavor any particular religious group and though we might like it if they favor our group at the moment we must rest assured – if they have the power to favor they have the power to disfavor.
2. But, as noted above, the knife cuts both ways. To pick a simple example – and one covered explicitly in the God endowed right to life; let us say I pursue national abortion legislation based on my interpretation of Psalm 139, particularly verse 13. For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I am the first to concede that such legislation must not be allowed. Not everyone, not even every Christian, holds Scripture to be authoritative in the sense or to the degree I do. Among those who may agree with me on the general authority of Scripture, some will argue that the Old Testament (including Psalms) has been superseded. And others will quickly point out that, as a pro-lifer who values the lives of the unborn and newly born, I would be horrified at any effort to pass legislation based on certain interpretations of Psalm 137:9. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock. Now, while I believe I can reconcile the 137th and 139th Psalms, others believe no such reconciliation is possible. Shall the government choose between us or shall the government simply say that various religious tenets shall not be the basis of such legislation?
3. So, yes – the wall of separation stands. But a wall is built on a foundation and the wall of separation of church and state is built on the foundational understanding that life and the right to continue having it comes from our creator – not our government. While no law for our society may be built on my narrow religious tenets – every law for our society must meet this baseline requirement – it may not deprive me of rights with which God endowed me!

     Even as I say this I realize that prisons and capital punishment certainly seem to qualify as depriving individuals of liberty or life or the pursuit of happiness – all of which are counted among those unalienable rights granted by the creator. And yet – the rationale for so depriving individuals of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is not the prerogative of the government but of the people. The people recognize that situations arise in which certain individuals, for whatever reasons, become threats to the everyone’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. A free society will not countenance my pursuing happiness by taking an ax to all my neighbors. This would be in complete disregard of the very idea of unalienable human rights.  Whether my neighbors put a stop to the threat themselves or call on the services of the government – sacred rights are protected rather than denied by preventing me from taking the ax to my neighbors. The role of government is ONLY to carry out these terms of our social compact in as least violent and invasive way as possible.

     Problems arise when the government ceases to be the servant of the free society and sets out to become its master. Problems arise when the government begins to regard itself as the author and guarantor of our unalienable rights rather than as the servant of all we rights-bearers.
So, it’s election day. Remember who we are and vote.