Understanding the Wall, Part 2: What Christians need to know about the Integration of Religion and Public Life

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.” – John Adams

The Founding Fathers were well aware of John Locke’s extensive argument for an institutional separation between Church and State in his Letter Concerning Toleration. Yet Locke, like the Founders, contended that this did not imply a mutual exclusion between Religion and Government. “Magistracy,” he wrote, “does not oblige the magistrate to put off either Humanity or Christianity.” The main point of separating Church and State is so that one institution does not usurp the role of the other. While the terms sound similar, an integration of Religion and Government means that the government should not fear when religion enters the public discourse or influences policy, nor should religious Americans shun the political process or feel cut off from the public arena.

But how does this play out practically?

Understanding the Wall, Part 1: What Christians need to know about the Separation of Church & State

“Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” – George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

I don’t usually find myself in agreement with the Americans United for a Separation of Church and State, considering that we tend to disagree about everything from how we interpret the Constitution to whether tomatoes are fruits or vegetables. So I was surprised when I read an angry article by Jeremy Leaming blasting the Religious Right and found a glimmer of truth. Leaming wrote, “[Washington] thought religion was important as a source of public and private virtue, but that doesn’t mean he wanted the government to force it on anyone.” How can I say that I agree with Jeremy Leaming and not lose my job with PFI? The answer lies in the fact that there is a profound distinction between a separation of Church and State and a separation of Religion and Government.

Parental Notification for Abortion - Is It Enough?

As of last October, California teens need a parent’s signature to visit a tanning salon, because of the risk for developing skin cancer. This coming November, California residents will vote to mandate parental consent before a teenage girl receives an abortion as well, because of the associated health risks.

In fact, recently a 15-year-old named Sarah died four days after her abortion procedure caused bleeding and infection. The California law is named for her; it will require abortionists to notify a teen’s parent at least 48 hours before acting on the procedure. That way, parents can help their daughter get appropriate medical care, especially if the abortion goes badly. And sexual predators will have a tougher time forcing minors to have abortions in secret. (See Sarah’s Law Story)

Tragically, Sarah is not the only one to suffer abortion-induced harm; Planned Parenthood of Washington, D.C. is now being sued $50 million for an abortion that left a 13-year-old with serious medical conditions, including sterility. Ironically, this girl’s mother was the one who took her to the abortion clinic, to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape. (See Story)

So maybe even parental notification isn’t sufficient. Maybe years of research and heartbreaking cases will finally be enough to outlaw this “simple” procedure with life-threatening consequences. And then we can go after the tanning salons.