The Constitution
And Religion

The letter in The Herald (12/20) from Mr. Don Reddick provides several undeniable examples of America’s religious heritage, going back to official government statements in colonial times, and also reflected in the utterances and beliefs of revered American office-holders.

On that basis, Mr. Reddick opposes the assertion that the "United States was not established as a Christian nation," or that there is a "separation of church and state." In this regard, I believe that Mr. Reddick’s reasoning is flawed.

Regardless of the general religious texture of our people and the religious piety of our office-holders, and regardless (or perhaps because) of our early religious history, the American nation decided in constitutional referendum in 1791, that the official acts of the federal government must be neutral regarding religion. In a later referendum in 1868, the American nation extended that requirement to state governments.

Mr. Reddick’s citations of official government religious invocations (in laws and treaties) are utterly irrelevant because they predate these national decisions.

The constitutional principle of official religious neutrality prohibits government from impeding the right of individuals to practice or express their religion, including government employees and office-holders. But, at the same time, the Constitution requires that no official government action may establish religion. So the personal religious convictions expressed by office-holders are also quite irrelevant in the face of mandated official government neutrality in religion.

It is assuredly wrong for Mr. Reddick to interpret the Constitution as solely prohibiting the formal creation of a national church, or preventing the formulation of government decrees regarding accepted religious beliefs.

Common sense dictates that if something is prohibited, then anything tantamount to it must also be prohibited. If not, a prohibition becomes easy to by-pass. So, if government takes any action that sponsors, endorses, or proselytizes religious belief, it would be tantamount to establishing religion, even if no specific religion or church were formally named. And, it would be illegal. That is what "separation of church and state" is about.

Still, nothing prevents anyone from applying religious biases when supporting or opposing political candidates. I do, however, share the concern expressed by an earlier letter writer, Mr. John Gropper (12/13), that people are becoming increasingly prone to do so. Such biases, if ever implemented officially, can only lead to the erosion of one of our most important freedoms.

Christopher D. Costanzo

Bethel