Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$global_prefix is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 468

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$blog_prefix is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 469

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$cache_hits is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 475

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$cache_misses is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 476
Patsourakos: Clergy Must Abide by America’s Tradition of Church-State Separation – AOI – The American Orthodox Institute – USA

AOI – The American Orthodox Institute – USA

Patsourakos: Clergy Must Abide by America’s Tradition of Church-State Separation

George Patsourakos, occasional commentator on the AOI Observer, posted a commentary on his blog “Theology and Society” sure to elicit some strong responses. I agree with his overall conclusion (keep candidate endorsements away from the pulpit) but I disagree with his interpretation of the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. What do you think?

This week former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said that religion in America has, by and large, become too involved in politics. He also warned of the dangers that could result if this trend continues.

For example, the fact that some pastors are now openly calling on their parishioners to vote a certain way is contrary to the established principle of separation of church and state in America.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, Americans are free to worship as they please, and there must be no government interference insofar as their worshiping is concerned.

On the other hand, the church in America has a similar responsibility; namely, to avoid getting involved in political affairs. More specifically, clergy should not urge their parishioners to vote for certain candidates who are running for state and federal offices.

A week ago, Massachusetts’ four Roman Catholic bishops issued a joint statement urging Catholics to vote in the November 2 elections so as to “enhance human dignity.”

Although the bishops’ statement did not endorse any candidate or party, it can be considered an intrusion into state affairs, because the statement does try to influence the way Catholics vote. The bishops did urge Catholics to weigh abortion, same-sex marriage, religious freedom, and the well-being of the poor when voting.

The fact is that these bishops — as well as all clergy in America — must instill the church doctrine and ideals that they want to convey through their (non-political) spiritual sermons or in general conversations with their parishioners.

For clergy to urge their followers to vote for certain candidates, because they may be in favor of church doctrine or ideals, serves as an injustice to the historical American tradition of separation of church and state.

Consequently, using the church as a justification to convince worshipers to vote for certain candidates or issues must not occur in American society.

Posted

in

by

Fr. Johannes Jacobse

Tags:

,

Comments

23 responses to “Patsourakos: Clergy Must Abide by America’s Tradition of Church-State Separation”

  1. Harry Coin

    The plain meaning in the constitution could not be clearer: The state has no business establishing a state church or getting involved in regulating or financially supporting religious activities nor the various assets and whatnot that make up the establishment for relgious activities.

    Those who go on to mention that the church therefore also has a legal responsibility to stay out of issues or candidacies that a religious group’s holdings bear upon just because an ongoing political debate includes some or all of that question- they must be disappointed to find in the text only requirements about the state to religion and nothing the other way; indeed limiting the relgions actively runs afoul of the further ‘free exercise thereof’ phrase.

    Certainly a church or religious group might deem it wise, as many rightly do, to refrain from suggesting this or that vote or this or that candidate, but there is no constituional compulsion for it so to do.

    The court’s only business is to determine where ‘establishment of relgion’ ends.

    Regarding the ongoing debate about if church’s tax exempt status ought be threatened when they get involved in campaigns or other questions on the ballot. Seriously, if I can give money to National Public Radio tax free, and they plainly support one group and disfavor the other whenever possible, the whole matter of tax exemptions for any ‘on the ballot’ campaign finance needs another look.

    Reply
  2. Andrew Behm

    The state is bound not to interfere with the church or sponsor a church.

    However, the church has the freedom to support whatever measure they wish. If they desire pro-life, as they should, they have that right and freedom.

    Don’t self-restrain yourself to non-existent rules. The church should be involved in society, not absent. After all, being involved provides evangelization, and protects our values.

    Reply
    1. Chris

      The US Republic in its earliest stages donated land for and even funded Churches.

      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=121

      Reply
  3. Nick Katich

    I agree with both Harry and Andrew. As an attorney versed in Constitutional law and Constitutional history, the comment that “Although the bishops’ statement did not endorse any candidate or party, it can be considered an intrusion into state affairs, because the statement does try to influence the way Catholics vote” and the comment that “For clergy to urge their followers to vote for certain candidates, because they may be in favor of church doctrine or ideals, serves as an injustice to the historical American tradition of separation of church and state”, are both sheer nonsense both from a constitutional perspective.

    The Establishment Clause, so-called, was never used or cited by the Supreme Court to create a wall of separation of church and state until its decision in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education. That means that, for the first 150 years of this country’s history, such a notion as suggested by George did not exist. That is why, in his dissent in the case of Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), then Chief Justic Renquist wrote:

    “It would seem…that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations…The Establishment Clause did not require neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the federal government from providing non-discriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson”.

    The ‘wall of separation between church and State’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

    What Renquist wrote was true and is borne out by history from the adoption of the Constution until 1947.

    Religious beliefs come with a set of values. Anti-religious beliefs do likewise. To say that I or any other member of the Church, including our priests, need to be guided by some mistaken notion of the Constitution and mistaken notion of its history is untenable. If we think, within the framework of our value sysgtem, that certain things are immoral and should not be allowed, or that certain things are moral and ought to be encouraged, it is our duty to speak out, guide this society and be its conscience. In order to do that, we have the absolute right and duty to insure that like minded candidates are elected.

    If George thinks that doing such “serves as an injustice to the historical American tradition”, then I say to advocate his position does an injustice to the mind of man. It becomes a tyranny over the mind. And, like Jefferson, “I have sworn upon the Alter of God hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man”!

    Clergy: use the pulpit all you want. Do not allow the Progressives, atheists and others to silence you. If Frankie Shaffer can speak out with nonsense, then his priest should be able to speak out with sense.

    Reply
  4. Michael Bauman

    The intrepretation of “separation of church and state” presented here is wholly at odds with the Constitution and wholly in line with those who want to neuter faith and erase the life of faith from public consciousness. The first clue is that is is in line with Jimmy Carter who long ago sold out his faith for liberal ideology–on the public stage at least.

    The writers of the Constitution saw clearly the need for people of active faith to be involved in politics. Their faith was a good deal more homongenous than it is now, but faith, especially Christianity has ALWAYS informed our politics and it was meant to.

    What the First Amendment was designed to do was keep the federal government off churches and prevent prohibition of the expression of faith publically in any context (not just ‘worship’). At the time of the adoption of the 1st Amendement many states had established churches. The authors simply didn;t want the central government involved. Many churches were important meeting places during the revolution BTW.

    Federalism really meant something back then. State sovereignity really meant something back then.

    Of course all we have to do is look at a whole multitude of Chrisitan saints, consfessors and martyrs to understand the absurdity of ‘separation of Church and state’ as an expression of the necessity of the Church to not be involved in ‘politics’. Politics, in the most basic sense, is simply people organizing to govern themselves and influence others to think in a similar manner. How is it even possible for the Church to be separate from such a basic human endeavor?

    Absurd reductionism is the only answer that comes to mind. It is a slap in the face to the sacramental, incarnational reality of the Church.

    We must not allow the life of the Church to become ideological in either direction, but the Church has to be involved or she simply becomes irrelevant, an museum of antiquities, archaic in form and content or disolved into the nothingness of the surrounding culture–trampled under foot having lost her savor.

    Reply
  5. Michael Bauman

    ….and furthermore, the false dicotomy between ‘spiritual and non-spiritual’ which Mr. Patsourakos draws is without ANY foundation in Orthodox belief or thought. It is the fruit of deism and dualism and a perverted rationalism that truncates both God and man, twisting them into unrecognizable parodies.

    Reply
  6. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

    Back in 2004 Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon wrote an essay on this topic:

    Free Press & Pulpit: On the First Amendment

    Reply
  7. Harry Coin

    Looking at this from in ‘inside baseball’ Greek Orthodox perspective: So very many of the leadership and their close supporters in the GOA are also high to senior in the system and politics of the US Democratic political party. Many of the social platforms of that party are in somewhere between mild to violent opposition to what the church upholds as the better way to live. So I wonder when I hear this notion of the church staying out of the business of the state, whether what’s really driving this is folk who enjoy activity in politics and in the church leadership at the same time do not want to find themselves having to ‘make waves’ in either venue. So this notion of bowing gracefully to the law is one they rather like.

    When you can have active contradictions in your attitudes at the same time, then whatever it is you want to do at any given moment can find ‘faux logical’ support from one side or the other.

    The ultimate resource — no matter what you want, you’re absolutely right!!

    The ultimate consequnce — you’re always at war with people who feel equally absolutely right.

    And when the person you’re at war with is yourself– then what happens is: you care less about needing reasons to do anything and you care less about evaluating morality in general. ‘You Rook Mahvellous!!’ What seems is what matters then. Because ‘matters’ means having to choose and go where it doesn’t much feel good. So, ‘matters’ roots are ignored.

    Here we are!

    Reply
    1. Andrew

      Harry, speaking of “Rooking Mahvellous”, I remember a certain GOA bishop of blessed memory who used to drive around in an expensive car with the personalized plate “AGAPE 1”

      Reply
      1. Harry Coin

        Andrew, along those lines: The then GOA national ‘clergy front PR men’ during a visit of one of the folks from Turkey put a banner over the top of the street under which his car would pass: ‘Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord’.

        The sort of ordained person able to think enough of himself that he’s willing to pass under that amid some cheering people and smile and wave. To complete it perhaps there ought to be kids in the car throwing out candy and icons of Christ ‘Extreme Humility’ and have ‘our hero’ refer to himself in writing as ‘Our Modesty’. (Wait for it..)
        .
        .
        .
        .
        ..

        Which I actually read with my own eyes once.

        Holy Buckets.

        Reply
        1. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

          Not to mention that this is a Messianic proclamation used for Christ only.

          Reply
  8. Andrew

    Every time there is a shift towards conservatism in politics commentaries such as this one appear in a variety of forms. Honestly, what good is Orthodoxy if it is simply a matter a personal taste and opinion. Too many Greek Orthodox have a irrational love affair with government as the instrument by which the world can be saved.

    Reply
  9. Nick Katich

    How true Andrew. Given the fact that it is only one side, and always the same side, that takes this attitude, tells you a great deal about that side. They can’t win the debate on principles. They only know how to prevail by stifling the debate. And, the ultimate stifle, for which there should be criminal penalties, is to force legislators to vote for a particular bill so that they can know what is in it only once it passes. For those Darwinists out there, I humbly apologize for suggesting that there has been no history of Cro-Magnon’s evolution since his appearance on earth. There has been a distinct devolution of the mental processes of the “Progressives” happening before our eyes. I have to reconsider evolution (just kidding) in light of this rapid devolution. Rational Man is slowly becoming Irrational Man. God help us!

    Reply
    1. Michael Bauman

      Nick, that is because rationality can only exist in any meaningful way when it is founded upon man as the image and likeness of his creator. Anything else is the tyranny of the temporarly powerful and the permanantly irrational.

      Reply
  10. Nick Katich

    Michael: You are absolutely right (truth and pun both intended).

    Reply
  11. Isa Almisry

    #1, Jimmy Carter should shut up. I haven’t heard him say an intelligent thing in over two decades. He used to be a decent ex-president. Now he is just a crotchety old man

    On the other hand, the church in America has a similar responsibility; namely, to avoid getting involved in political affairs. More specifically, clergy should not urge their parishioners to vote for certain candidates who are running for state and federal offices.

    No, the Church in America has no such responsibility. Several states the ratified the first amendment had state churches, and continued to do so. The Orthodox Church in America was incorporated by terms of the AK Cession treaty. Each and every present state constitution mentions God, and eight bar atheists from holding office: only since 1961 have the clauses been held unenforceable (the interpretation wasn’t possible until after the 14th Amendment-there never had been a challenge until then, and even then not for a while, alomst a century after the 1st Amendment’s existence-and even then it wasn’t so applied until 1947.)

    The First Amendment wasn’t submitted for approval to the Church. It is therefore not a party to that social contract.

    I also do not see the exception clause in the 1st Amendment which prohibits bishops who are citizens of the US from exercising free speech.

    Is Jimmy Carter upset about Rev. Wright’s speeches?

    Much to the chagrin to SCOTUS Kagan, the Church doesn’t get its right to speak from the First Amendment, the First Amendment just prohibits the State from telling the Church what to say.

    Reply
    1. George Michalopulos

      Isa, my own opinion of Jimmy Carter is even more jaundiced than yours. He’s not only crotchety, but a resentful, bitter old man. Ever since Ronald the Great handed him his ass in 1980, he’s had a hate affair with this country and has fashioned a bigoted view of it which more comports to his own delusions. You have to wonder if he’s really a Christian, the love of Christ is nowhwere found within him based on his writings and speeches. (Come to think of it, he sounds very much like Frankie.)

      Reply
  12. Mark G@lliher

    I agree with Mr. Coin and Bauman, but I want to stick up for the idea that the Church should be very judicious about overtly supporting or opposing a candidate or political position. We can all agree that adultery is a sin but still disagree about whether to support candidates who want to criminalize it. On the other hand, I support the R.C. bishpos’ position of urging their faithful to vote against pro-abortion candidates. What principles can we look to in deciding whether the Church should take sides on a political issue?

    Reply
  13. thanosloukas

    Dear Mr. Patsourakos:

    I believe you have been grossly misinformed, regarding Church and State separation.

    I tend to agree w/ Mr. Andrew Behm and Mr. Nick Katich veru much.

    You obviously have been lead astray by the liberal media. First in our constitution which was written by our Forefathers who just happened to be VERY Christian orientated, especially if you bothered to read some of the speeches these men have left us in their own writting.

    Thomas Jeferson
    George Washington
    John Adams
    Francis Scott Key

    Just to name a few! Church was never apart from the foundations of this couyntry.

    As a Greek Orthodox Theologian I can assure you! You are mis-informed about how Church and Politics work and have worked together in history.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

      Thanosloukas, you might like this:

      Reply
      1. thanos loukas

        Bravo!!! Fr. Johannes.

        When I clicked on the video I saw the man speaking, and I knew exactly who and what he is and I knew what he was going to say. He’s a great fighter of American Justice in the educational world.

        BRAVO.

        God Bless you.

        Reply
      2. Michael Bauman

        Well, Father, I don’t doubt the truth of what David Barton says, but the fruit of the government funded ‘evagnelization’ of the native Americans from Jefferson on is not to be celebrated IMO. Just ask our brothers and sisters in Christ in Alaska.

        The U.S. ‘evangelization’ destroyed families, culuture and lives with a speed and effectiveness that armies could not begin to approach.

        The culutral deposit of the Great Awakenings in this country I see as a disastor that paved the way for much of what we complain about today, the atomization of community, the rise of progressivism, and the replacement of the Gospel of Truth with the gospel of the individual.

        Protestant history turned into Protestant myth combined with the maximum santitizing of modern hagiography.

        I have no doubt that Jefferson would have risen to power in almost any society in which he lived the was brilliant intellectually and a Machievellian politically. He looked up on religion as a means to social dominance and control. He would have used the dominant religion of whatever society to achieve the same ends. His actions as President show no evidence of actual faith or belief–just politics baby.

        Barton, in attempting to address the lies and distortions of his political opponents is merely adding another layer of false mythos that does Chrisitianity little good.

        Reply
  14. cynthia curran

    Well, Jimmy Carter is a typical left wing evanglelical who is very self-righteous and for Reagan he may not had went to church that much but his instincts about the weakness of the old Soviet Union was correct and were wrong on dealing with the immirgation messed-particulary in his own state of California.

    Granted, the Us government was influence by the culture around it and its shortcomings. So, is modern Orthodoxy with the Roman Empire influence of the Byzantines. In fact, I think most americans less critical of politicans and presidents compared to the Byzantines of their own emperors-Procopius thought that Justinian and Theodora were demons in human form. Not that I would ever go that far even for Obama who I even feel sorry now because the left based of his party is giving him hell over comprising with the Repubicians.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Notice: ob_end_flush(): Failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5481