A Wall or a Picket Fence?
Most thoughtful Americans are familiar with the phrase “the wall of separation between church and state.” Indeed, it is more than a phrase—it has become a doctrine that has gained in stature in recent decades. Most folks by now know that this wording does not exist in the U.S. Constitution, rather, it was a line used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a friend that has now been quoted ad nauseum. It was not one of Jefferson’s finest sentences, though he wrote enough good ones for us to forgive him.
The “wall” notion deserves ongoing analysis and critique. Criticism of such should first note thatwe are not saying there should not be separation of church and state. To the contrary, nearly all Americans believe it a blessing to live in a land where there is separation. And most of us hope that the governing council in Iraq can figure out how to do it in a Muslim majority setting. The problem is the erection of the wall—which suggests that you cannot see each other, or talk back and forth like good neighbors should.
A further distinction is needed. If you separate church and state, does that mean you separate religion and politics, or faith and education, or spirituality and views on marriage? If you listen to the media, you’ll hear rather quickly some predictably trite sound bytes that cast religious folks as bothersome, and muffle attempts to allow one's faith to address contemporary issues. So under the “wall” doctrine, all the gay marriages that took place last weekend in San Francisco are supposedly not open to critique from us religious types.
We have suffered long from this “Enlightenment” thinking which attempted to privatize religion and keep it away from public life. Jefferson can be quoted at great length advocating this position. He wanted education to be “non-sectarian,” which in reality meant that all religions and worldviews other than his own “enlightened” views should be excluded from government and education.
The majority of Americans are increasingly uneasy with the wall. They understand that you cannot do education, for example, without talking about values, wisdom, and truth—and that inevitably leads to religious issues. They understand one’s view of tax cuts, or land use planning, or gay marriage have their deepest root in a worldview and/or religious framework. You cannot censor religion from the voter’s booth—I take my faith with me to vote.
Some very interesting statistics and analysis were recently reported by Stephen Post of CaseWestern ReserveUniversity regarding health care. In one study inAnn Arbor, MI, 93% of women with gynelogical cancer indicated that their faith would be critical to their coping with this serious diagnosis. Likewise, a study from John Hopkins of Alzheimers patients indicated that 87% would rely on their spiritual beliefs to face their painful future.
Happily the health care field is acknowledging and affirming faith as something significant and vital, not unworthy or mistaken, for those healing and coping. Yea even in public hospitals, clinical pastoral care is part of the landscape and referrals are steadily rising. Sensibly, the wall of separation is being replaced by a picket fence where there is dialogue, listening and learning about faith and belief.
If this happens in public hospitals, why not public schools and colleges?
There is an interesting twist to this discussion when applied locally. The Native American community has always known that spirituality could not be isolated from life. The Navajo Nation officially adopted TheFundamental Laws of the Dine’ in 2002 which includes the following language:
“The Navajo Nation Council and the Dine’ have always recognized and respected the principle…that all Dine’ have the right and freedom to worship as they choose…[and] the Dine’ way of life…does not separate what is deemed worship and what is deemed secular…”
The Navajo Nation is essentially advocating a picket fence, which is much more true to life thanJefferson’s wall.