The Preaching Politics Predicament
The separation of church and state explained
Written by Emma Goshin, Contributing Writer
Graphic by Shea Murphy, Contributing Artist
In 1992, a church in Binghamton, New York posted an advertisement in USA Today and The Washington Times urging voters to not vote for Bill Clinton in the upcoming election. The church warned Christians about putting the economy over the Ten Commandments (2012). It also highlighted that Clinton supported abortion rights, gay rights and the promotion of safe sex in public schools, views that don’t traditionally fall in line with conservative Christian values. The church was sued for violating the law.
The subject of this case involves one of the most important issues in the U.S.: the separation of church and state. According to the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, the government cannot establish an official religion of the U.S. or favor one religion over another (Cornell Law School, n.d.). The International Revenue Code states that religious organizations that are recognized as 501(c)(3) nonprofits do not have to pay taxes (2012). Further, the IRC does not allow for nonprofits exempt from federal taxes to intervene in political campaigns or make statements supporting or opposing a certain candidate, party or political action committee.
“Religion is too important to be a government program or a political pageant” (Lankford & Moore, 2018).
In the case that became Branch Ministries v Rossotti, the IRS revoked the Binghamton church’s status as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization due to the breaking of the IRC’s rule on intervention in political campaigns. After the church challenged this decision in court, their case was rejected and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia concluded that the IRS did not violate the church’s First Amendment rights (2012).
The separation of church and state is a core value of U.S. law and politics. However, the relationship between the two has caused much debate on several issues because of how strongly individuals want their values represented in government.
On Sept. 1, 2021, Texas put a law into effect prohibiting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. That same night, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that law with a 5-4 vote (Totenberg, 2021). Part of this law assigns citizens the task of enforcement. The law allows any person to sue people and clinics for aiding in providing abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
According to CNN, 45-49% of pregnancies are unintended (Ravitz, 2019). Someone could test positive for pregnancy about two weeks from conception. However, many women would only take a test if they were intending to get pregnant or monitoring their period closely. Thus, it becomes unlikely that some women even know that they are pregnant before they pass the six weeks mark.
The recent uproar surrounding the topic has resulted from the immediate defiance of the new Texas law from Dr. Alan Braid, who believes that abortions are a fundamental right. Braid publicly admitted to performing an abortion on Sept. 6 (Kitchener & Parks, 2021). Since the woman who received the abortion was past the six-week mark, Braid was immediately sued for violation of the law.
Not only is he providing a service that is a fundamental right, but he is protecting Texas women from looking to other methods for abortion. Coat hangers and back-alley abortions are two extremely dangerous ways that women who do not have access to legal abortions receive them anyway. By having experienced and trusted doctors perform abortions with the correct medical supplies, the safety of women receiving abortions can be ensured. We cannot let states like Texas begin to dismantle the separation of religion and government based on largely religious ideas.
Following the Texas ban, a federal judge blocked enforcement of the law, citing that Texas unconstitutionally prevented women from controlling their rights. Although the block is temporary, this scenario is setting the groundwork for the coming debate over abortion rights that faces the Supreme Court when they hear a new Mississippi case that challenges Roe v. Wade.
Standing against abortion rights is often based on religious ideals. The conflict over this right has to do with the relationship between religion and government. The U.S. places a huge value on patriotism and Christianity that often excludes minorities and marginalized groups. The Texas law targets people with low income and people of color who may be marginalized. In response to the legislation, Vice President Kamala Harris explained, “This law will dramatically reduce access to reproductive care for women in Texas, particularly for women with low incomes and women of color” (Jagannathan, 2021). Before getting an abortion, a person has to gather the money to pay for it because many insurance companies do not cover the procedure. People with low incomes already have more trouble accessing health care for this reason. Banning abortions after six weeks adds another layer on top of the struggles that marginalized people have in obtaining adequate health care.
The issue of church and state has also been in discussion on campus. This year, classes started on Rosh Hashanah, one of the holiest Jewish holidays (Blank, 2021). Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, is extremely important to the Jewish community. Many students were excused from attendance on the first day of classes if they were celebrating the holiday. However, this does not take away from the fact that this public university blatantly ignored Jewish students and made them feel like if they celebrated their faith, they would miss important academic material. Students should not have had to choose, especially at a public school. Considering that classes would never overlap with a holiday like Christmas, it is hurtful to Jewish students that they are essentially being neglected. Public universities collect much of their funding from the government. They should therefore be responsible for creating a schedule that allows students to observe the important holidays in their religion without missing class content.
The separation of church and state allows for mutual respect between religion and government. Republican Sen. James Lankford and Dr. Russell Moore agree with this idea, “The church should not rule over the state, and the state cannot rule over the church” (Lankford & Moore, 2018). This idea is an essential part of the government that grants people the legal right to practice any faith they wish or to not practice faith at all. It also keeps religious texts away from infringement on governmental proceedings.
Overall, protection of the separation of church and state is essential for the prosperity of a country that values democracy and religion but also lets them live equally. It is extremely important to protect things such as law-abiding 501(c)(3) non-profits, abortion rights, and religious freedom. Staying informed on issues that could present an infringement on the separation of church and state is essential. With an educated public, we can make informed decisions on electing public officials who will protect this principle.
Sources:
Blank, R. (2021, July 20). Chancellor message: Start of fall classes and Rosh Hashana. News.
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Establishment Clause. Legal Information Institute.
Jagannathan, M. (2021, September 3). Texas abortion law will hurt people of color, those with low incomes and other marginalized groups, advocates say. MarketWatch.
Kitchener, C., & Parks, C. (2021, September 25). Alan Braid is known for defying the Texas abortion law. He’s spent years challenging antiabortion laws. Washington Post.
Lankford, J., & Moore, R. (2018, January 16). The Real Meaning of the Separation of Church and State. Time.
Liptak, A. (2021, May 17). Supreme Court to hear abortion case challenging Roe v. Wade. The New York Times.
Lucas, R. (2021, October 7). A U.S. judge Blocks Enforcement of Texas' controversial New Abortion Law. NPR.
Preaching Politics From the Pulpit. (2012). Pew Research Center.
Ravitz, J. (2019, May 9). Reasons a woman may not know she’s pregnant at six weeks. CNN.
Totenberg, N. (2021, September 2). Supreme Court Upholds New Texas Abortion Law, For Now. WABE.