Church and state must remain separate for democracy

by ANNA GOODMAN

Staff Writer

The separation of church and state is enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This distinction often leads to conflicts, primarily revolving around the interpretation and application of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

Some of the main points of tension around this divide include public education, faith-based initiatives, health care legislation and LGBTQ+ rights. These become problem areas when a legislator lets their religious beliefs muddle their government neutrality. It should not be as commonplace as it is today for politicians and legislators to allow their religious beliefs to guide their decisions relating to the government, nor should religious institutions be involved with politics. 

In 2008, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) supported a California ballot initiative called Proposition 8, which added an amendment to the state constitution stating that California only acknowledged marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Members of the LDS Church in total contributed over $40 million at the instruction of LDS leadership. Whether or not one agrees with the legislation of Proposition 8–which has since been overturned–one should understand the distinction between church and state. 

The individuals who supported this initiative based on their religious beliefs have every right to use their values as a lens through which to form their opinion but to use that lens to impact legislation is inappropriate. Furthermore, it was wrong for the LDS Church to endorse and lobby for legislation on behalf of itself. 

Not only did the LDS Church campaign and encourage members to help in any way they could for Proposition 8, they also spent around $190,000 on the campaign. This included direct contributions and in-kind donations such as staff time and resources. While all religious institutions should be allowed to express their opinions on ongoings in the political world, they should not be in a position where they can influence the outcome. Through my interpretation of the Free Exercise clause, this is a violation of the First Amendment. 

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the use of religion to affect governmental interest. The U.S. Courts report that “Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.”  

In daily conversations around the separation of church and state, I find that some people fail to consider the Free Exercise Clause and base their politics around their religious beliefs. What is worse than this behavior from constituents is this behavior from politicians.

Throughout his political career, former Vice President Mike Pence has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, citing his evangelical Christian beliefs as a reason for opposition. As a U.S. Representative, Pence supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, which sought to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman at the federal level, which was a blatant push of religion onto legislation.

In 2016, Pence signed in favor of a bill that would place restrictions on abortion access in Indiana, and again cited religion as his reason for doing so. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt blocked the law. In 2023, a conclusive abortion ban went into effect in Indiana, per a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court. There are narrow exceptions under this ban. 

The 2024 Presidential Election particularly raised concerns for constituents who believe in defending the separation of church and state. While J.D. Vance is now running alongside former President Donald Trump rather than Pence, Trump also integrates his religious views into his political endeavors. 

During his first presidential term, in 2018, Trump introduced and established the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative. This initiative states that “The efforts of faith-based and community organizations are essential to revitalizing communities, and the Federal Government welcomes opportunities to partner with such organizations through innovative, measurable, and outcome-driven initiatives.”

This initiative raises major concerns for me as it is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. It could blur the lines between government and religious institutions while also potentially leading to favoritism or the endorsement of specific religious groups. To keep the separation of church and state that line must never blur. 

Some civil rights groups worry that the initiative could lead to discrimination, particularly against LGBTQ+ individuals. They argue that faith-based organizations might refuse to provide services to certain groups based on religious beliefs, which could be seen as government-endorsed discrimination. 

Americans have every right to practice or observe any religion, but the application of those beliefs to governmental interest is inappropriate and unlawful. Everyone deserves the ability to express their opinions through politics, but it becomes an issue when a person uses politics to influence legislation based on religious logic. It becomes an even bigger issue when the people with governmental power do this. 

This is pertinent to the 2024 presidential election as the outcome may decipher the true strength of the separation of church and state. During a National Day of Prayer event in the Rose Garden of the White House on May 3, 2018, Trump said, “Faith is more powerful than government, and nothing is more powerful than God.”  Upon his re-inauguration, if Trump is to introduce initiatives akin to the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, church and state will no longer be separated but intertwined. 

 It would be detrimental to our country for religion to overwhelm politics. The attempt to blur the lines of separation between church and state is a despicable violation of integrity and a danger to our country’s democracy. I believe every American has the right to determine their own opinions, but not to determine those of others, and the responsibility to keep religion out of politics.