Civil Legislation: Constrained by the Constitution, Not Christian Scriptures

Too many Christians in America seem to confuse their Bible with the Constitution. The difference is critical: their Bible is a religious document with no more authority than they give it, and even then it's solely over their own lives. The Constitution, in contrast, creates the structure of the American government and constrains the legitimate authority of our government. The Constitution has no religious authority and the Bible has no civil authority.

This should be obvious and easy to understand, but the truth is that too many Christians in America confuse the two completely.

Reverend Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, made this point very nicely when he was interviewed by Keith Olbermann:

GADDY: Keith, it is by some of us seen very much by a moral perspective, but your very question highlights the problem that we're facing right now, and that is that some people in the religious community understand morality one way and some people understand it another. That's why the United States Congress is commissioned not to legislate sectarian morality but to legislate policies that are good for the whole nation.

The real question in any debate in Congress ought not be what do the scriptures say, but what does the Constitution say. Not what does it mean to be a good Christian, Jew or Muslim, but what does it mean to be a good American.

Source: Keith Olbermann, Thursday, November 12, 2009

The context of this statement was a discussion about some of the recent actions of the Catholic Church:

OLBERMANN: In relation to Congressman Stupak's amendment, specifically. The Catholic bishops now say they can't support any health care plan that includes a provision for abortion. Again, the alternative to that is: no provision, no plan, and another 44,000 Americans dying in the next year because of insufficient insurance and another 44,000 after that.

How does that make sense in terms of, to use a phrase, "right to life"?

GADDY: Well, I understand that every religious tradition ought to have a right to advocate for its moral perspective. But once you jump into the political arena, you have to play politics like everyone else plays. Obviously, the Catholic bishops are deciding to play hard ball politics. Now, they also have a responsibility to take the reciprocal action that comes from that.

And there are other people in this nation who understand pro-life to go beyond the life of a fetus, and include the life of an adult. And this legislation is--by the broadest definition--pro-life legislation. It varies from that only in one or two traditions that maximize this issue of abortion as the moral issue that trumps all other moral issues.

I find it very interesting that pro-choice activists and pro-choice women in particular are being asked to give in on this issue, to give up their expectations that abortion won't be further restricted in order to placate anti-choice activists and thus get support for health care reform from anti-choice Democrats. Why aren't those same anti-choice activists not being asked to give in themselves? It looks an awful lot like the best way to avoid being asked to compromise is to make your position as religious as possible -- which happens to be one of the criticisms I keep making about introducing religion into politics.

OLBERMANN: The Catholic archdiocese of Washington also says it's not going to be able to continue its social service programs it runs for the district. That means no help with homelessness, with adoption, with health care clinics if the city is not going to change its proposed same-sex marriage law. How does--explain--help me understand how that makes sense.

GADDY: I can't help you understand how that makes sense. Compassion is compassion. And compassion does not take all of its goods and run away when it doesn't get its way in a political decision that represents the will of the nation.

The Catholic Church is doing the right thing in advocating for its point of view. The Catholic Church is a good citizen of this nation as are other good citizens in the religious community and beyond. And if they lose on this point, that shouldn't trump their commitment to showing compassion in any community.

Catholic Charities is essentially insisting that it be allowed to benefit from government funding without having to pay attention to the strings which are normally attached to that funding -- strings which every other organization receiving similar funding has to abide by. I don't dispute the idea that Catholics have sincere religious objections to gay marriage, but sincere religious objections are no more a sufficient justification to treat gays as second-class citizen than they would be to treat blacks or women as second-class citizens.

Catholic Charities doesn't have to receive government funds to oversee a government program. If Catholics don't like following standard civil rules which everyone follows, then they can limit their "charity" to their own private funds (though I frankly have trouble applying the label "charity" to actions which are dependent upon everyone else being constrained by narrow religious dogmas). There is a cost associated with creating a more public organization like Catholic Charities for the purpose of receiving public, non-Catholic support.