On the occasion of our
new president determining that his religious beliefs permit stem cell
research---I hesitate to thank God for that---it seems appropriate to
republish, with slight editing to take out references which may not
have much meaning today, something written in June, 2007 and
published at Daily Kos in December 2007. I am, of course,
pleased with what the President has done, though, maybe not so happy
that he felt necessary to explain his own religious views, which, as
discussed below, are not a proper basis upon which to do the public's
business. Remember that what follows was written in 2007 and involved a
veto of a bill to fund stem cell research by the President of that era,
one George W. Bush
A reader (or even a viewer) of the coverage of ... vital issues
might expect a closer examination of the exercise of a President's veto
over legislation to fund research to cure diseases on the ground that
he "will not allow our nation to cross [a] moral line" by "compel[ling]
Ameircan taxpayers ... to support the deliberate destruction of human
embryos." But, as John Belushi used to say, "noooooo....."
It appears that the people who determine what is worth fretting about,
have decided that pigheaded or not, a President, sort of like a King,
can do no wrong, at least in the sense that he is allowed to veto
legislation based because he "will not allow" legislation that crosses
a moral line he has drawn but, assuming that the country he serves is
not per se immoral, is not one drawn by the majority of the country.
This is not to say that a President is bound by a majority vote; he
most assuredly is not. That is what his veto is all about, to protect
against unwise legislation despite a majority view to the contrary, and
certainly to protect against the tyranny of a majority.
But
drawing moral lines for his fellow countrymen is not one of the
President's powers. Indeed, even in their constitutional role as
"Defender of the Faith," and head of the Church of England, actual
authority over the church no longer resides in the English monarch,
which the current President apparently believes to be equivalent, but
rather in the General Synod.)
The President's assertion that
this country was "founded on the principle that all human life is
sacred" has little or no historical basis and, in any event, its
relevance to this issue depends on the quite debatable proposition that
the embryos to be used as a source of cells for research constitute the
"human life" considered to be "sacred." Under the law of the state in
which I live, New York, a "person" whose death can constitute a
homicide is "a human being who has been born and is alive, although our
murder statutes have also been amended to cover the deaths of "an
unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than
twenty-four weeks." The death of an embryo is not, therefore, a "sacred
human life" and does not constitute a crime. The President's personal
opinion, which he is surely entitled to, cannot alter that law.
Since
the question of when life begins has no definitive answer, its
resolution depends on a person's beliefs, influenced in many cases, by
religious doctrine. Assuming, as is reasonable and fair, that the
President's belief that an embryo constitutes life, is his sincere
belief, it is likely that this belief has been formed by his devotion
to faith which he has repeatedly spoken about. Our Constitution does
not, however, permit him to impose those religious beliefs on those of
us who have differing ones, notwithstanding the view of the Texas
Republican party, of which the President is presumably a member, which
has stated as part of its platform for several years that "America
is a Christian nation [and w]e pledge to exert our influence toward a
return to the original intent of the First Amendment to dispel the myth
of the separation of church and state."
So there you have it,
really. The President's party believes this country is a "Christian
nation" and he is not only permitted to but mandated to veto
legislation which does not conform with his religious views so to
"dispel the myth" that church and state are to be separate. The first
and only Catholic to become President had a different view:
"
I
believe in an America where the separation of church and state is
absolute...I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic,
Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or
accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National
Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no
religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the
general populace or the public acts of its officials...That is the kind
of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency
in which I believe, a great office that must be neither humbled by
making it the instrument of any religious group nor tarnished by
arbitrarily withholding it -- its occupancy from the members of any one
religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are
his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor
imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that
office....I would not look with favor upon a President working to
subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty; nor
would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so...Whatever
issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth
control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will
make my decision in accordance with these views -- in accordance with
what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without
regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or
threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if
the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be
remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate
my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the
office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise."
This is, of course, from
Senator John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech before Greater Houston Ministerial Association when the fact of his Catholicism was considered a serious obstacle to his election as President.
To
resolve the difference of presidential opinions (other than the obvious
factor of which one was publicly acknowledged and which requires
reference to an obscure political platform, but is otherwise not openly
conceded), we turn again (see the entry about United States "District
Attorneys") to the Honorable Robert Jackson, a United States Attorney
General and the chief prosecutor at Nuremburg, but also a Justice of
the Supreme Court, which is where he wrote
a relatively brief explanation of what was meant by the First Amendment's bar against the establishment of a state religion: "
[I]t
is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and environment
of the period in which that constitutional language was fashioned and
adopted.
A large proportion of the early settlers of this country
came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled
them to support and attend government favored churches. The centuries
immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America
had been filled with turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated
in large part by established sects determined to [330 U.S. 1, 9]
maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the
power of government supporting them, at various times and places,
Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted
Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects,
Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another
shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted
Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened
to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and
place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured,
and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been
inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of
ministers of government-established churches, nonattendance at those
churches, expressions of non-belief in their doctrines, and failure to
pay taxes and tithes to support them.
These practices of the
old world were transplanted to and began to thrive in the soil of the
new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the
individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would
control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and
companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether
believers or non-believers, would be required to support and attend. An
exercise of this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of
the old world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves
hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed
their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to
certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who
happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted
because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own
consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay
tithes and taxes8 to support government-sponsored churches whose
ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and
consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred
against dissenters. These practices became so commonplace as to shock
the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. The
imposition of taxes to pay ministers' salaries and to build and
maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation. It was
these feelings which found expression in the First Amendment. No one
locality and no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given
entire credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in
adoption of the Bill of Rights' provisions embracing religious liberty.
But Virginia, where the established church had achieved a dominant
influence in political affairs and where many excesses attracted wide
public attention, p ovided a great stimulus and able leadership for the
movement. The people there, as elsewhere, reached the conviction that
individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government
which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to
assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any
religious individual or group.
The movement toward this end
reached its dramatic climax in Virginia in 1785-86 when the Virginia
legislative body was about to renew Virginia's tax levy for the support
of the established church. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the
fight against this tax. Madison wrote his great Memorial and
Remonstrance against the law. In it, he eloquently argued that a true
religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either
believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a religious
institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required
that the minds of men always be wholly free; and that cruel
persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established
religions. Madison's Remonstrance received strong support throughout
Virginia, and the Assembly postponed consideration of the proposed tax
measure until its next session. When the proposal came up for
consideration at that session, it not only died in committee, but the
Assembly enacted the famous 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty'
originally written by Thomas Jefferson. The preamble to that Bill
stated among other things that
'Almighty God hath created the
mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments,
or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of
hypocrisy and meanness, and are [330 U.S. 1, 13] a departure from the
plan of the Holy author of our religion who being Lord both of body and
mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either . . .; that
to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even
the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious
persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his
contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his
pattern ...'
And the statute itself enacted
'That no
man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship,
place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained,
molested, or burthened, in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise
suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief. . . .'
...
The
'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another...." This
is worth talking about, it seems to me, since it involves one of the
very foundations of our republic, not to mention, in this instance, the
life and health of so many of its citizens. It is at least as important
as whether it has been adequately proven that celebrities get treated
better than the rest of us.