H 36°, L 23° | Tomorrow: 
H 23°, L 9°Diminishing the euphoric celebrations of progressives at the election of Barack Obama was the ominous shadow cast by the success of measures like Proposition 8, which limits marriage to heterosexual couples. As a result, the issue of faith’s role in government and politics has been raised again. Religion, it is often argued, has no place in politics, and Proposition 8 has been cast as a prime example of the result of its interference.
The idea of some rigid and impassable wall between the religious beliefs of America’s citizens and the operation of its government is grounded in Thomas Jefferson’s assertion of a “wall of separation between church and state,” an approach to the issue that has been adopted by the Supreme Court. This separation, of course, was intended to protect various religious beliefs of Americans from government interference, and not so much to protect government from religion.
To wit, the forefathers were all too aware of the pervasive and oppressive state religions in Europe that interfered with the operations of other European Christian denominations. Jefferson and others were concerned certain state actions could lead to the establishment of a state religion at the expense of other religious denominations. But Jefferson and James Madison, the most vocal proponents of this wall of separation, never dreamt of excluding God from government. There is, after all, the issue of Jefferson’s preamble to the Constitution, which states, in part, that man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights, specifically life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That is not to say that every half-cocked idea our forefathers had was a good one. The allowance of slavery is a historical and reprehensible example of just how bigoted Madison, Jefferson, Washington and their contemporaries were capable of being. But I offer the preceding argument as a means to show that if one is to use Jefferson’s idea of separation of church and state as a means of precluding God from government, one must also acknowledge that Jefferson insisted upon rights that are ensured by a Creator. Our nation’s independence is grounded in the faith that God created man to be free.
The civil rights movement led by men of faith like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was infused with a faith in a merciful Almighty that would have no man be considered less than another. This is a belief that is grounded by Paul’s assertion in Roman’s 2:11 that God is not a respecter of persons. God is just and equitable. This civic aspect of faith demands that all men and women be considered to be truly equal, and the civil rights movement demanded that government honor this godly tenant.
There is, then, ample precedent to support the idea that God and faith have a place in American government and politics. It is my belief that government has a mandate from God to ensure that its citizens’ rights are protected, and to provide an environment where one can lay claim to the inalienable rights as spelled out by Jefferson.
Christianity, for the most part, holds that homosexuality is a sin. The anachronistic ideas espoused in Leviticus are often cited as precedence for this, but it is in the New Testament that Christians ground their faith. Paul, in the first chapter of Romans, speaks disparagingly and damningly of the homosexual practices of the residents of Rome.
Government, however, does not have a religion, but a mandate from the Almighty to protect its citizen’s rights. As long as the main arguments against same-sex marriage are predicated on the religious belief that homosexuality is sin, government has no business upholding bans on same- sex marriage.
If government does not want an answer from its citizens that is opposed to its role as insurer of American’s rights, don’t ask us the question. Referendums are ineffectual in the arena of procuring civil rights. There’s a reason why segregation in the South was not defeated by referendum.
What then is faith’s role in government? I believe that faith’s role in government is at its best when it seeks to protect or procure rights for people. For example, faith’s role in the civil rights movement and the ideas of American independence and individual freedom and equality. For further example, the role of faith in procuring rights for the unborn is a just cause worthy of support regardless of one’s faith or lack thereof.
But the role of faith in obstructing gay marriage is unnecessary and misapplied. We, as believers, don’t have a dog in this race. Gay marriage does little to affect the rights of churches or infringe upon our ability to practice our faith. There is no precedent from the Bible that urges believers to interfere actively with a group’s right to engage in something God calls sin when it does not interfere directly with our ability to worship and follow Him.
Let’s rid our discourse of the notion that God and faith have no role in our politics. When faith’s role in government is guided by the godly principles of equity and love, there is little to fear from its involvement.
Gerald Cox ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in economics and Asian culture and languages.
IP hash: 16c1af6c
Gerald — this is probably one of the best, and most well-thought-out, reasonings to support same sex marriage. Let me offer, however, that God calls us to be “salt and light” in this world. Jesus hung out with the “sinners,” but he called them to repent. God doesn’t tell us to check our Bible or our convictions at the door when we go to the ballot box. How can we as a nation continue to push God out by voting to support issues that aren’t Biblical (not just homosexuality) and then question His commitment to us (especially during times of trial or crisis). God says that we’re either for Him or against Him. I know several gay people, and I like them. For me, the issue is whether I want to please man or please God. Easy answer.
IP hash: ff671016
Yeah, but here’s my idea of religion and gay issues. Let’s say there’s a bunch of gay pride parades across the country. Marchers are all decked out in hot leather on floats, gyrating into each others’ butts, dykes on bikes as they proudly call themselves, a gay Jesus and his gay disciples, a gay Allah, a gay Buddha, a lesbian Statue of Liberty and lesbian nuns, a gay pope…
All of a sudden, a huge cloud materializes out of the sky and LO AND BEHOLD!!! It’s Jesus making His second coming! A stream of fire shoots out from His mouth and devours all the parade marchers and onlookers! Ha ha!! And the church bells ring and the pope comes out on his balcony, Jesus swoops down and they high-five. Then the Temple in Jerusalem is miraculously rebuilt and all the Muslims melt in the streets.
CHRIST RULES, DUDES!!!!
IP hash: 8038aa09
Bullshit, Gerald.
Absolute fucking bullshit.
If you’ve ever read the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams explicitly stated that “Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” So neither Christians nor Muslims have the right to bring their deity into government.
You also seem to be ignorant of Jefferson’s own views; Thomas Jefferson was not the most hyperreligious fellow (he was a Deist; the only separation between him and most atheists is the fact that he thought there was some sort of deity), and there is no mention of any supposed ‘mandate’ from your imaginary friend anywhere. In fact, there is, to date, no official text even implying the government has any non-secularity - I think that’s your own prejudices talking.
Here’s a thought: not everyone believes what you do. A secular government is the only way to respect everybody - it respects those who are theist and those who are atheist. As ridiculous as religion is, there’s something called the first amendment, and having been crapped upon at least once for the fact that I’m an atheist because some of your coreligionists can’t seem to stand the fact that I exist (some idiots down south would probably shoot me on sight), I respect everyone’s right to think what they want.
And we’re not all godbots, Gerald. Please rein in your assumptions.
IP hash: b43eab93
Wasn’t the rapture supposed to be two millennia ago? Does a religion get better with age or something?
IP hash: c624b210
I suggest that before an atheist can criticize Christianity or those following a religion, they should read the Bible or at least have clear reasoning for why they are so hostile.
Why is it that an atheist’s only defense of their own beliefs is to make fun of Christians and criticize religion? It takes a lot more faith NOT to believe in God.
IP hash: b38b339e
Ignorant dribble masked in self-righteous anonymity…
Invictus Maneo
IP hash: 5dfa0520
Gerald, I usually read your pieces and I must say, this one in particular is outstanding. It was very informative and rather insightful; I’m not particularly religious (at all… whatsoever…) so I won’t agree with everything you say about religious history (and of course I cannot tell you that it’s wrong—it’s YOUR belief), but I will happily acknowledge that we’re definitely pointed in the same direction.
As for ‘Bullshit’, may I just say that was profoundly unnecessary? Thank you for your insight, but this particular column is called ‘Opinion’ for a reason. Calm down. I’m pretty sure Gerald’s not telling everyone facts that you have to believe. But I wouldn’t be so hypocritical; if you think you can respect everyone’s right to think what they want, please do so politely and it might be more believable next time.
IP hash: 835b4c01
Not sure the gist of this article and the headline agree.
IP hash: 435975f5
While I disagree with your conclusion about same-sex marriage, this is the most eloquent and thoughtful defense of allowing same-sex marriage I have ever encountered.
IP hash: 6fabc93d
Gerald, did you forget that St. Paul discouraged Christians from marrying? Paul, moreover, thought Christ’s return was so imminent that it was a waste of time to take a wife.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9 “8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
IP hash: 0c10d38d
7:58
First off, in a republic, the government is going respect the believes of the people. If the people want to sacrifice goats the government should allow it. Being as that is, the case the majority of America is Christian so the government is going to have Christian ideals, not because the government itself is based on Christianity but rather because it reflects the believes of the majority. Not to mention that western society is based on Judeo-Christian ideals thanks to Constantine. So the statement that not everyone agrees with Gerald is true but I think it is safe to say more people agree with him than with you.
Secondly, the fact that you mention your religious or lack of religious affiliation invalidates any argument for secularsim because you are implanting your believes of there not being a god into the argument as opposed to not mentioning it at all.
Thirdly, to finish your statement you say that you respect everyone’s right to think what they want.
“As ridiculous as religion is..” Hmmm that’s an unbiased statement.
And finally I am sorry you got “crapped on” for being an atheist. Were you fed to lions in front of thousands of cheering people? Where you put into gas chambers. Or exiled to India by the People’s Republic of China. Or totured under the garrucha, toca or potro… and the list goes on of members of religious groups being “crapped on”. Something tells me you were not. Throughout history just about every demographic has been “crapped on” and done its fair share of “crapping” on other religions so that fact that you probably had some names yelled at you really doesn’t matter because just about everyone has. So if you want to cry about it keep it to yourself.
IP hash: cdda3e8f
Please help report vibration motion sound,prope athority this is a crime, I myself, am a person thats reporting as such myself non mental pstient or adjusting to to asnything would be considered, angled to this written request please help person traveling through Florida Lake City, from Ohio. My Name is Regina L Byrd
IP hash: b67cf683
2:51
That’s all fine and well, and I certainly respect that viewpoint, but this is a matter of legality and not faith. Equal rights implicate our laws and faith the same. But there’s only one that directly enforces those rights in our world and that’s the law - and in the world of law, you please man.
IP hash: 09c36bdf
To Gerald: I agree wholeheartedly with everything you mentioned in this article - except the pro-choice bit, but that’s completely off topic, so I won’t get into it - and I definitely second (third? fourth?) the other people’s opinion that this was one of the most eloquent and thoughtful columns I have read in a while on the subject of same-sex marriage.
One thing, though, directed at the self-proclaimed athiest who stated, “I respect everyone’s right to think what they want” at the end of his/her comment - which so eloquently began with “Bullshit, Gerald. Absolute fucking bullshit.” The apparent introduction and conclusion of this individual’s comment do nothing for each other. I know nothing about the supposed “mandate” that both Gerald and the anonymous commentator referenced, nor do I think one opinion is more valid than the other, generally speaking, but my point here is that the athiest seems MUCH less respectful of others’ opinions and religions (or lack thereof) than does Gerald.
I myself am an agnostic; I used to be athiest, but I felt much more offended by the word choice and tone - and, frankly, the content - of this person’s comment.
As the following individual said, “As for ‘Bullshit’….I wouldn’t be so hypocritical; if you think you can respect everyone….do so politely and it might be more believable next time,” I think it wise to be a little more sensitive to what others think before jumping the gun with completely closed-off opinions. By all means, share your opinions, but do not force them upon us or judge us for ours.
IP hash: b67cf683
Gerald,
There are so many things that are so crazy about this sentence, and the one that follows it, that I cannot accept it as valid:
“Government, however, does not have a religion, but a mandate from the Almighty to protect its citizen�s rights.”
With its following sentence, it leads to an absurd result. Let’s work it through:
Government does have a mandate. That mandate comes from the God. Government does not have a religion. God’s mandate is not religious.
The mandate is by its nature religious. If that mandate is religious, how can government NOT have a religion? Even if that religion is ONLY the belief in God?
This sentence is problematic because of the sentence that follows it:
“As long as the main arguments against same-sex marriage are predicated on the religious belief that homosexuality is sin, government has no business upholding bans on same- sex marriage.”
Logically again:
Government’s mandate comes from God (assumed) Arguments against same sex marriage come from God Government cannot act based on beliefs that come from God Government cannot fulfill its mandate.
And that, is a big problem.
Try leaving God out of it and go straight to the heart of the matter which is that the majority is using its power to exclude the minority from privileges the majority enjoys. That violates every precept of our constitutional hierarchy (presuming LGBT are a protected class, for which there is support) and doesn’t even need to analyze God’s relationship to this.
IP hash: 86435482
Sorry. But as a Christian pastor, I’ve studied Romans 1 and cannot agree with your interpretation. Read the context. The passage is directed at people who hated God and turned away from God. The gays in my church don’t hate God and do not turn away from God. This passage does not apply to the gays in my church.
Moreover, as Paul uses the term homosexuality, it’s not the same as our understanding of homosexuality today. And Paul was speaking of temple prostitution, certainly not committed, loving relationships.
And then, Romans 2 says that we’re not to judge, anyway.
Please watch it when you quote from the Bible.
IP hash: 4bb3aa21
I can’t believe this crap gets past the editors…
Gerald, how can you believe in only part of the bible? Doesn’t that make it contradictory? And if a source is contradictory, how can you cite it as evidence? OH WAIT, I KNOW. It’s called faith, the answer to everything!! You should check out the phrase “intellectual dishonesty”, it dovetails nicely with this “faith” concept.
IP hash: b5ed618d
Gerald,
As an atheist and agnostic, I would like to say many thanks for providing a well though out and informative opinion column in yesterday’s paper. Just as I do not find it useful for non-theists to go around claiming that everyone who is religious is wasting their time, not would i expect you to find it tasteful for every theist to publicly condemn everyone to eternal damnation.
While I do not agree with every one of your views, I have nothing but the utmost respect for them. You provide a rational approach to one of the problems facing citizens of America today. Thank you
IP hash: 7bf6fbf7
Faith and gov, gov and faith… can we please get off this played out topic that will never get resolved and focus at the true roots of prop 8 not passing? I beg with you all look at some of the underlying facts that will help out rule the �evil God� brainwashed bigots, as the sole demise and destruction of prop 8/gay marriage.
1) No matter how much “faith” is put into prop 8 it is not the writers that have the last say; it is the people that vote on the proposition. In the case of California, we can agree on (with national surveys and all) that the state of California is less religious (not Christian but religious including all belief/faith systems) than is the rest of the nation.
2)Being that California is less inclined (as a whole) to believe in life after death or the existence of a god, can we not then say that they are less likely to vote on prop 8 due to religious reservations? If not, then you are being as ignorant as can be.
3) I am not saying that there is no “God” or “Gods” affiliation in California; please do not get me wrong. I am saying though that due to the overwhelming population (we’ll even scale it down a tad bit to 60%) of Californians do not have the “faith” spoken of in Gerald’s article, it is not a Bible/God/Faith issue anymore it is a human nature issue. Until the gay community and its supporters can rally in crowds in persuasion and plea their case (with fact based evidence that is from an unbiased camp) then will they start to when over supporters.
Quick tip to some of the I’m not so sure if “I’m gay or not” people, I can see that for the most part you all are for equal rights for the LGBT community so stop hurting the community by playing the card that being gay is a choice and not, as many in the LGBT community claim, simply how they’re made.
-A Ticked of Badger