I know the attention of the country is riveted to whether the pastor of a small church in Florida will engage in a despicable, disrespectful and potentially harmful protest against the followers of Islam. The latest news? He's still deciding. (How much longer do this guy's 15 minutes last, anyway?)
But what I'm reading today is about another potential harm to the religious freedom of all Americans, should the separation of church and state be trampled in the way advocated by former Senator Rick Santorum in a speech last night in Houston. As I posted yesterday, the point of the speech is to challenge President Kennedy's Houston famous speech to Baptist ministers in 1960, when – as a candidate – he assured that he would not be controlled by the Vatican, and that he believed in an "absolute separation of church and state."
You can read Santorum's speech here. Most of it quite frankly is uncontroversial. We readily accept today that laws are often shaped by values – the democratic values of justice, equality and liberty. We also know that our commitment to those values are often bolstered or inspired by our religious faith. Thankfully, Santorum admits that "all of us have an obligation to justify our positions based upon something that is accessible to everyone irrespective of their religious beliefs." Good! But then there are other passages:
Ultimately Kennedy’s attempt to reassure Protestants that the Catholic Church would not control the government and suborn its independence, advanced a philosophy of strict separation that would create a purely secular public square cleansed of all religious wisdom and the voice of religious people of all faiths….
Kennedy took words written to protect religion from the government and used them to protect the government from religion. It worked – in the years following this speech the concept of an absolute “separation of church and state” gained wider and wider acceptance due to its inculcation in the academy.
Where to start? Nobody wants a public square "cleansed of…the voice of religious people." How can he even suggest as much? There's barely an elected official who is an atheist in all of the United States! Turn on the TV, watch the goings on in Congress or state legislatures from Maine to Hawaii and you will hear almost nothing but the "voice of religious people of all faiths." And religious wisdom too! What the "separation of church and state" demands – and properly so given the First Amendment protections all Americans enjoy – is that government action reflect and be based upon the public interest, and have a purpose that is sensible, irrespective of the religious beliefs it may otherwise resemble.
Wait, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! It's in Santorum's speech! He agrees that any position of government that can't be "based upon something that is accessible to everyone irrespective of their religious beliefs" is inappropriate, counter to the "obligation" of public officials. And it's indisputable that the vast majority of elected officials are in fact people of faith. So, really, what is Rick complaining about? I mean, seriously, can someone explain it to me?
