Religion & American Law

At the end of February, presidential candidate Rick Santorum relayed his nauseated response to President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech regarding “the absolute separation of church and state.” In this editorial, R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, sides with Santorum that an “absolute” separation is impossible although he states that Santorum “clearly missed some of the careful nuances of Kennedy’s speech.” While President Ronald Reagan’s name has been batted around recently as well I wonder if Santorum is attempting to highlight tensions between himself and fellow Catholic President Kennedy due to scandal brought to light earlier that month with an extensive interview with Mimi Alford.

After expressing his gastrointestinal distress, Santorum proclaimed “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.” This exhibits not only Santorum’s literal, uninformed reading of history but a very narrow view as it appears he can not understand why American citizens of other or no faiths are uncomfortable with this. This completely threatens the separation of church and state which apparently is not as solid and uncontested as believed. Mohler states that it is impossible to have a complete separation of the government and all religious institutions as evidenced by the continuous flow of legal proceedings regarding faith based conflicts. In addition, “Human beings are composite creatures, and there is no way that authentic religious beliefs can be safely isolated from an individual’s total worldview.”

It is in this way that Kennedy diverges from Santorum and Mohler on ideas of church and state. In 1960, then candidate John F. Kennedy was facing a similar problem as Mitt Romney. As a Catholic presidential candidate, Kennedy had to prove to the American public that he would work for and with Americans within the defined secular, American laws and not act as a puppet for the Pope forfeiting American autonomy to Catholic rule. The American people wanted this separation, at least from the Catholic Church. Many of his contemporaries described President Kennedy as able to “compartmentalize his life” in this way, for better or worse, in both the political and personal spheres. I assume, although it is not stated explicitly, that Santorum views this compartmentalization as equally destructive to America as it has been to President Kennedy.

We do need different guidelines to operate in the diverse areas of our world especially the American president, whose decisions have far reaching effects on diverse groups of people. I agree with Mohler that our beliefs, religious or not, are part of who we are and influence our decisions. However, politicians are required to make decisions based on American law not religious doctrine. Kennedy reaffirmed the American ideal of religion as being dependent only on the individual’s conscience and therefore one can not incorporate religion into the government and impose these beliefs, with no legal grounds, on other individuals. Although there is obviously overlap between legal and religious realms in The United States this does not mean we should throw our hands up and stop trying to navigate this grey area and in the process make some Americans vulnerable with the loss of their civil liberties.

In response to President Obama’s compromise, which lifted the obligation of providing free contraception off of religious institutions and placed it on insurers, several church officials met with members of congress in order to discuss the implications of such a policy. The clergy in attendance addressed the insufficient appeal of President Obama’s proposed compromise. According to the religious institutions, the limited exception failed to address the main point of their opposition. Although the new policy would not oblige religious institutions to directly finance the contraception services, the moral implications of offering it through insurance companies would still lie on the employers. This means that with the new policy in effect, employers are still required to offer insurance plans explicitly contradictory to the doctrine they preach. According to a rabbi in attendance, “Religious organizations would still be obligated to provide employees with an insurance policy that facilitates acts violating the organization’s religious tenets”.

A Catholic reverend in Massachusetts addresses the issue of contraception and clearly states the church’s opposition to it. Reverend Roger J. Landry employs Pop John Paul II’s sermons on intercourse which discuss the complete devotion of oneself in exchange for another’s love. Landry goes on to describe the exploitation which can occur when the purpose of intercourse is not of a reproductive nature, but pleasure. According to the priest, “When that petition is made for contraception, it’s going to make pleasure the point of the act, and any time pleasure becomes the point rather than the fruit of the act, the other person becomes the means to that end”. Although many, including other Catholics reject his explicit opposition on the basis that it is oppressive to women, he explains that by refusing contraception and using intercourse strictly as a means for reproduction, the use of women for sexual pleasure becomes eliminated.

Despite the doctrinal differences among them, all of the clergy in attendance were opposed to Obama’s policy on contraception. All parties involved in this issue seem to agree that the policy is a bold move by Obama in the political arena. According to some, the policy is Obama’s way of increasing abortions and contraception while others claim the church is acting in accordance with an age old intention of oppressing women. Although both are certainly possibilities, the moral implications of the policy will probably be milder than either case is arguing. Those who staunchly oppose preventive medicine do not do so because of its limited availability, and so will not become suddenly supportive of it after this policy is put into action.

Clearly the institution of the policy would be imposing on the rights of the religious institutions. By requiring employers to offer services, however indirectly, which are contradictory to their doctrine, the state is forcing the institutions to act against their religious beliefs. However, if the policy does not go into effect, the legislation would be bending to the rights of the institution over the rights of the individuals. The larger issue at hand seems to be who to cater to. The rights of the individual have always seemed to take priority over those of possibly oppressive institutions in our nation’s history. In accordance with this, the legislation of this country has never seemed to bend to church doctrine in the past. The trend of increased individual rights is not likely to cease, despite the threat of secularism in the nation. The freedom to choose is essential to the American individual, despite how that may oppress larger institutions.