|
"Let
every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: The powers that be are
ordained of God." -- Romans 13:1
The
separation of church and state has long been debated
in our court system, houses of government and in the
media. Many believe that the doctrine
justifies expunging any hint religion from the
government domain.
What's
the truth? Is the popular perception myth or
reality? It helps to know how the Separation of
Church and State doctrine come to be established.
Our
furthermost Virginia patriot, Patrick Henry,
advocated state support of religion as governor.
But in 1776,
Henry, who in due course championed the Virginia
Bill of Rights, wrote, "That religion, or the
duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of
discharging it, can be directed only by reason and
conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore
all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of
religion, according to the dictates of conscience;
and that it is mutual duty of all to practice
Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each
other."
Based
on my studies of the colonial era, I would say
without a doubt the country was founded on Christian
ethics and principles, but the intent and cause of
religious separation originated with Colonial
Virginia's Anglican parish churches and the English
Crown.
In
Virginia, the indoctrination of separation of church
and state was based solely on the rejection of the
taxing powers the English Crown bestowed on the
Church of England.
The
Church of England functioned as an arm of the state.
The tax collector would begin the service at the
lower pulpit to announce tax levies on the
colonists. Later, the Anglican minister would assume
the higher pulpit to preach the word of God.
One
tale tells of Orange County colonials who, when the
American revolution began, ordered the local
Anglican minister either to return to England on the
ship or see the hangman's hood wrap around his head.
Across
the Commonwealth, Anglican ministers fled back to
England in droves.
Many
colonial vestrymen had dissented from the Church of
England and left the church. Virginia colonists had
rejected the Anglican parish, and many of those
churches remained dormant for decades following the
Revolutionary War.
Over
the course of time, American-history textbooks have
been rewritten by the powers that be - which
includes the current era's ruling societal class,
the judicial branch of government and majority
political party in control.
Historians
and politicians still argue whether the founding
fathers intended on purging or instilling
Christianity from the hallways of our American
government.
Republican
Party gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore told the
Blue Dog, "This country was founded on
Judeo-Christian values, and they are the values that
reflect the policies and laws of our country and our
Commonwealth."
But
should Virginia law reflect Judeo-Christian
religious values?
The
Valley Yellow Dog wrote, "As compared to what?
Satanist values? Virginia laws should not explicitly
reflect any 'religious values.' Virginia laws, and
all other laws, should provide for the orderly
governance of the land to protect the life, liberty
and pursuit of happiness of the citizens. The laws
may coincidentally embody values also found in
religious belief systems, but should not
deliberately incorporate values uniquely identified
with any religion."
Republican
lieutenant-governor candidate Bill Bolling told the
Blue Dog, "Our country and Commonwealth were
founded by people who held strong Judeo-Christian
ethics. They believed, and I agree, that we would
become strong and remain strong only as long as we
remained committed to these important principles. For
these reasons, I do believe that our laws should
reflect those Judeo-Christian values."
Staunton
Republican Del. Chris Saxman asked the religious
values question. "Should or does? The fact of
the matter is that U.S and Virginia law do reflect
Judeo-Christian values with respect to the manner in
which rights exist. Our founding fathers and our
founding documents establish that rights come from
God and not man. As laws are written to protect
those established rights, they naturally would be
seen being in support of or against those
rights."
Saxman
went on to say, "Recently, the Supreme Court
decided in Kelo v. New London that the state
can take private property from one person and give
it to another private entity if the public benefits.
I think that is not reflective of the established
rights granted to man to own property, hence it is
not reflective of Judeo-Christian values."
Matt
Lohr, the Republican Party nominee in the 26th House
District, said, "Laws reflect a society's sense
of morality. Throughout history, a society's
laws have reflected its moral foundations, which are
typically established by the prevailing religious
influence. The systems of law in the Western
world tend to reflect Judeo-Christian values.
"I
see no reason why Virginia should depart from this
tradition and turn its back on our nation's moral
tradition."
The
Commonwealth's attorney-general candidates,
Republican Bob McDonnell and Democrat Creigh Deeds,
are in agreement on the issue.
Deeds
said, "The law reflects Judeo-Christian values.
The overwhelming majority of the framers as well as
the jurists and legislators who have come since,
have been from a Judeo-Christian background."
McDonnell
said, "From the Declaration of Independence to
the Virginia Constitution, our nation and our
Commonwealth's heritage was Judeo- Christian. The
inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness that are 'endowed by our Creator'
are the cornerstone of our system of
government. Our founders' writings were full of
references to religion and morality.
"I
believe that Virginia's law should and does reflect
the traditional bedrock values upon which our nation
was founded."
--
July 25, 2005
|
