MAINTAINING SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
(…. is much harder and gets even fuzzier if it’s the State that decides to….meddle)

When the founders of our republic sat down to write the Constitution, they had very clear ideas about how to structure the system so that the powers of government would not only be separated between the branches of it, but also, between itself and the various states as well. Half of articles of that founding document are dedicated to defining and enumerating what those powers were to be and how they were to be spread between them.

It wasn’t until they had completed the draft of that document that they came to the realization it was flawed because there was hardly any mention in it concerning what the very delicate balance between individual rights and collective rights should be. It was a deficiency which generated a lot of heated debates (in what we call the Federalist Papers), taking the better part of eight years to more or less resolve, and even then, not as perfectly as many wanted.

Fortunately, thanks to Mr. Madison, a – Bill of Rights – was provided as the solution to those contentions, and tacked onto the Constitution as the first ten amendments to it. Among other things within these, was the determination that there would be an absolute firewall of separation between Church and State because, from both past colonial period experience, and the very long tail of bitter past history, they were keenly aware that Church meddling in affairs of the State was inimical to the personal freedoms they wanted to guarantee for the new nation and society they were trying to create.

Thus, the opening sentence of the very first Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof :”… very simple and straightforward declarative language, the operative phrase of it being the underlined one preceding. Unfortunately, they didn’t reach out further to define what the limits of such “free exercise” might be….and we’ve been arguing about it all ever since.

Nevertheless, in the context of their experience, and their perceptions at the time, we should understand they were aiming to protect State secular interests from future meddling by the Church. Little did they dream or imagine that some 230 years later it wouldn’t just be Church interests attempting to breach that firewall of separation, but…the State…using stealth maneuvers to get around such prohibition.

And now, here we are today, with the Executive attempting by such a stealth maneuver to mandate that faith-based organizations must comply with its latest directive requiring employer paid health plans to include free contraception services for women. A mandate which clearly violates that provision of …. the free exercise thereof… for faith-based organizations who oppose doing so because of religious belief.

.

Whether this was done from sheer arrogance and hubris of its authority to mandate anything it wants to mandate, in support of whatever political or public policy agendas it deems right; or, just plain sloppy lack of attention to what that little old first line of the First Amendment means, it was still an arbitrary move on its part (most probably due to its desire to pander to a particular voter demographic in a tight election year cycle).

The resulting firestorm of protest, especially from Catholics (ironically, another voter demographic it really can’t do without in these upcoming elections) has put the Executive between a political rock and a hard place. It has since been forced to retreat somewhat by modifying that directive, shifting the cost of such a requirement over to the health insurance providers instead.  Semantics do have their uses.

Well, no matter how they try to spin it, it was an attempt to breach that firewall of separation. The fact that it was the State rather than the Church that attempted to do so is something about which everyone should be concerned. Maintaining separation of Church and State is harder and gets even fuzzier if it’s the State that decides to….meddle.

We expect faith-based and single issue elements of the electorate to hoot and holler and pressure government to cater to their views. It’s what they’ve always done. But we also know that the Constitution has generally protected us from such pressures. We don’t, however, expect those whom we’ve elected to high office to ignore their oaths of office to uphold, protect, and defend that Constitution from all enemies, foreign, or domestic.

So what this incident clearly demonstrates is that we need to be extremely vigilant whenever any of our career politicos are promoting whatever flim-flam legislation they’ve come up with, and attempt stealth maneuvers to get around any constitutional firewalls that obstructs whatever political agendas they have in mind. It’s the nature of such beasts, and what they….do. Comes next November let’s keep that in mind when we’re all in those voting booths, and let this old Roman caution be our guide ….CAVEAT EMPTOR.

When it comes down to it, the only ones who can protect the provisions of our Constitution is we, the people. No one else can….or will.

CENTURION