Thomas Jefferson, whose self-composed epitaph deems his composition of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom more important than his terms as president, would be appalled to learn that one state was seriously considering establishing an official religion. Fortunately, Mr. Jefferson does not have to bear witness to the fact that, 200 years after the Constitution was signed, lawmakers still do not understand the importance of separating church and state.
A group of North Carolina Republicans recently introduced a resolution that would give the state the right to establish an official religion. That religion — most likely Christianity — would be introduced via clauses in the bill that deny the power of the First Amendment at the state level. The measure states that neither the First Amendment nor federal court rulings on the subject of church versus state has binding authority over North Carolinians. Establishing a state religion would thus be permissible.
State bills rejecting the power of the federal government are no anomaly these days. Issues such as marriage equality, gun rights, abortion rights, marijuana legalization and Obamacare have led legislators in many states to attempt to seize maximum autonomy for their constituents. Those lawmakers commonly argue that they are protecting their states from undue overreach by federal laws.
Since states’ rights arguments often refer to avoiding oppression from the government, it is puzzling why lawmakers in North Carolina would support such a bill, as establishing a state religion flies in the face of individual liberties. Nothing good can come of creating a law that favors one system of worship over another. It is not the same as promoting a state tree or bird, which benignly highlights a region’s notable features (perhaps there are a particularly high number of cardinals in your state). To establish a state religion is to say that one particular way of thinking defines the citizens of an area. Religion colors the way in which people perceive and interact with the world around them. Asserting that North Carolina is a Christian state presupposes that the government believes its people are more intellectually homogenous than is actually true. It is foolish to mandate that a person’s personal beliefs are more worthy of government consideration than another’s. It is also offensive to different-minded citizens — people of minority religions or people who rightly believe that religious convictions should go no further than the individual espousing them.
Additionally, establishing a state religion would make the criteria for appropriate laws in North Carolina increasingly arbitrary. Why should we not pass this law, legislators could say, when it clearly complies with Christian thought? A state religion would increase the probability that religious stances on marriage equality, abortion and stem cell research and other issues would become codified in law, despite that much good would come through further discussion. The wall between church and state is already circumvented in politics every time a politician uses religious beliefs as rationale for a particular political stance. Establishing a state religion would more deeply ingrain the idea that no discussion or rational thought is necessary to justify a bill if a lawmaker can simply appeal to religious authority.
Thankfully, Thom Thillis (R-Charlotte), North Carolina’s speaker of the house, squashed the state-religion bill. But why did North Carolina lawmakers feel compelled to challenge the federal government’s power in the first place? It appears to be an act of desperation. Republicans in North Carolina feel increasingly helpless in the face of changing national sentiments on social issues — recall that North Carolina passed a state law banning gay marriage — and are using religion as an attempt to fight a shifting political landscape. The way in which those lawmakers are attempting to rebel, however, makes them look ignorant. The bill’s official title was the “Rowan County Defense of Religion Act”. This title, which echoes the Defense of Marriage Act, reflects the idea that religious liberty is being infringed upon in the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no need for the government to defend religion, because the United States has always existed with a clearly defined tolerance on the part of the government for differing belief systems. So any drop in American religious fervor is because of a cultural shift rather than political circumstances.
It is frightening that elected lawmakers seem to not recognize the benefits of church-state separation. Other states should view the actions taken in North Carolina as a clear overreaction to current political debates. Yes, more citizens are in favor of changing federal stances on some issues. And North Carolina may soon be forced to adopt laws that run contrary to its religious traditions, depending on how gay-marriage and stem-cell debates play out on the national stage. But that does not mean that its lawmakers are justified in attempting to block progress by affirming an absurd right to one specific religion and taking their state back to the Dark Ages.
Alex Yahanda is a senior associate editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.yahanda@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 9 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 14 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
