Hudsonville Michigan will 'Strive to Serve God'

There are a lot of different ways for Christians to mix their religion with civil government. It's rare to still find examples where they try to use force to impose their beliefs on others, but there are regular examples where they use the government to promote or endorse their beliefs. Some imagine that this is a legitimate function of government and within the scope of governmental authority, but nothing could be further from the truth.

One recent case involves Hudsonville, Michigan, where some Christians got the bright idea that the city government should "strive to serve God." Apparently, someone confused the roles of civil government and church leaders — churches strive to serve the Christian god, but civil government exists to serve the interests of the citizens. The Freedom From Religion Foundation wrote the city government a letter on behalf of a local resident, but mayor flatly refuses because he doesn't seem to believe that government is supposed to be secular.

"We are not creating a church; we are not asking anybody to only accept what we have in that mission statement," Mayor Don Van Doeselaar said. "If there are those that disagree, we are fine with that. It's a statement that reflects the community." ...Van Doeselaar said he consulted with city attorney Dick Wendt, who determined the city was within its rights. The mayor said he also talked by telephone with the six other commission members. All agreed to keep the phrase, he said.

"We feel that we are not violating the principles of the separation of church and state," the mayor said. "As it's been pointed out to us by legal counsel, you see phrases like that in the pledge. In currency, you see, 'In God we Trust.' From time to time, our president will address the nation and end the address with the salutation that says, 'God bless America.'"

Source: MLive

Here we have a find rejoinder to people who oppose strict church/state separation — including more than a few atheists — and who insist that phrases like "under God" and "In God We Trust" cause no real harm. They do cause a variety of problems and here is a prime example: it's used incessantly by Christians who are seeking justifications for introducing even more religion into secular government. One phrase is used to justify another, then you have several examples of government-endorsed religious beliefs and it becomes ever harder to argue against making matters still worse.

There is also a second argument being offered here: that no force is being used to impose religion and religious beliefs on others. It's a popular argument which is also being offered by this editorial in The Grand Rapids Press:

The humble reference to serving God in the City of Hudsonville's mission statement hardly poses a threat to religious freedom or the Constitution. The sentence simply reflects deeply held community values. ...Nobody is being asked to subscribe to a certain set of beliefs or take part in a ritual not to their liking. Nobody is being forced to pray to a foreign deity, or to any deity at all, for that matter. Nobody's being asked to agree. In fact, in a democracy, dissent is actively encouraged. In defining their mission, city leaders sought to make a statement about value and purpose that reflects their community.

Both Mayor Don Van Doeselaar and this editorial are claiming that so long as nothing is being forced on any citizens, then a government can express, promote, endorse, or encourage any religious ideas that people want it would still be legal, constitutional, moral, and appropriate. So long as people who disagree continue to have a formal legal right to disagree, then every is OK. There is absolutely no legal or constitutional basis for this position; on the contrary, there are a slew of court decisions which reinforce the fact that this sort of behavior is unconstitutional.

On the legal side, it's not within the scope of authority of any secular government to promote, endorse, or encourage any specifically religious beliefs. They can encourage beliefs which some religions happen to share — like that murder is wrong — but only on the basis of secular reasons. Government can promote the idea that murder is wrong, but not that murder is wrong because any particular god says so. Government certainly can't promote the idea that any particular gods exist (any more than they can promote the opposite), that any particular god's will should be done, or that any particular gods should be worshipped, served, prayed to, etc.

On a more moral or personal side, imagine if a city government adopted as a mission statement something like "striving to serve Jesus" or "striving to serve Allah." Would this be acceptable? You know that Christians would certainly oppose the latter and many would even be able to see how wrong the first is. Notice, however, that neither are technically inappropriate or unconstitutional if we accept the arguments of Mayor Van Doeselaar or the above editorial.

Is it acceptable for civil government to "strive to do the will of Allah" so long as no mosques are thereby created? No. Is it appropriate for government to "strive to do the will of Krishna" so long as no one is expected to believe in Krishna? No. Is it constitutional for government to "strive to do the will of Jesus" so long as no one is forced to perform any Christian rituals? No. All the same is true when it comes to "God" — capitalized, so specifically referring to the Christian deity.

Pious defenses about how the statement "reflects the community" or "reflects deeply held community values" are irrelevant. Something doesn’t become constitutional simply because it's popular any more than it can be unconstitutional simply because it is unpopular. To put it another way, striving to do the will of God isn't constitutional because it "reflects deeply held community values" any more than striving to do the will of Satan would be unconstitutional for opposing deeply held community values.

Many Christians think that the insertion of their religion into civil government can be justified by the democratic process — if the people want it and vote for it, then it must be legal and constitutional, right? This represents either ignorance or an out-right denial of what the Constitution is. Anyone who reads it closely will recognize that it places limits on governmental authority as well as the ability of majorities to abuse their power by getting government to engage in illicit behavior. A majority of Christians can no more enshrine their beliefs in the government than a majority of whites can enshrine White Supremacism in the government.