Separation of Church and State
Resurrection of Sabbath Laws
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The idea of legally enforcing a "day of rest" has lain somewhat dormant until recent years, but lately the cat-calls from the choir have begun increasing in volume. In Massachusetts, the state's Council of Churches initiated a campaign to pressure various governments, schools, businesses, and civic groups to "respect" the "religious tradition of our churches" when scheduling their activities. It's not necessary to respect or consider any other traditions, evidently - just the religious traditions of the dominant forms of Christianity. And, of course, churches won't need to bother respecting anyone's traditions or needs when scheduling their activities.
New York's Roman Catholic Cardinal John O'Connor made his own views felt by criticizing athletic leagues and other city groups for daring to have events on Sundays and Christian or Catholic holy days. In his regular column in the New York Times in 1998, he complained that events like Little League games were replacing his traditional Sunday church services. A bit earlier he announced that he would be boycotting Major League Baseball last season because all 30 teams had played games on Good Friday, and some of them even during the time period scheduled for Good Friday Mass.
My response: So what?
Even his poor flock recognized that the Cardinal stepped over the line of good taste and decorum. American Catholics, to a greater degree than Catholics in other countries, show a good deal of sense by trying to maintain some independence from church regulations, like those on abortion and contraception. This issue was no exception. Interviews in the papers in the following months revealed strong feelings - one man was quoted as saying "I don't think that anyone has the authority - hopefully not in this country - to tell you that... Everybody's got their beliefs, and perhaps he's (O'Connor) overstepping his bounds."
Hear, hear!
He was absolutely overstepping his bounds by calling upon people to give his beliefs a special position above the beliefs of others. If he was having trouble filling his pews, he should have taken a good look in the metaphorical mirror and figure out where he was going wrong such that people prefered to attend other activities rather than his church services. Falling attendance is the problem of the church leadership, and they really shouldn't look for a government bailout! If people like him do their jobs properly, people will attend services regardless of alternative activities. Otherwise, people will choose to do other things on their Sundays.
Guess which is currently happening?
Mounting Challenges to Secularism
It is important, however, to recognize that O'Connor was not a rogue Cardinal in his sentiments here. On the contrary: such demands are becoming typical among the church hierarchy. In 1991 and 1993, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston wrote to then governor of Massachusetts William Weld opposing Weld's plan to allow stores to open at 9 o'clock on Sunday mornings instead of noon. Clearly, he didn't think his churches could handle the competition from the local Wal-Mart. Bummer. He should've considered the response of most local establishments when faced with unbeatable competition from Wal-Mart: a going-out-of-business sale
Pope John Paul II himself even became involved in such efforts. In an encyclical issued in 1991, John Paul called upon governments around the world to recognize Sunday as the day of rest and calling this position "a human right, which is based upon a commandment." Funny - off hand I cannot think of any human rights which are listed in any of the commandments. Is being told not to covet a human right? Is being told to respect parents a human right? I don't think so. Sadly, it is all-too-common for some Christians to mistake their religious doctrines with "human rights." I also find it curious that he thinks his "day of rest" is a human right, but not evidently the "day of rest" observed by other religions.
The Pope also urged leaders of the European Economic Commission to forcibly impose blue laws upon the citizens of Europe, with some success. Clearly, he considered himself and his beliefs to be primary in the world marketplace - or at least the European marketplace - deserving a special position of support, recognition, and even enforcement. The last time the Catholic Church held such a position within Europe, it was a time of feudal repression, "the divine right of kings," bitter serfdom, and a total lack of religious freedom. Is that what the Pope wanted to return to? Although European politics has progressed dramatically since those times, has Rome? I sincerely doubt it.
I don't know which is worse: that a Pope in this day and age really thinks that his dogmas deserve special government support, or that some government leaders would actually provide him with that support.
Against Liberty
There is a consistent subtext of anti-civil liberty ideology running through statements on behalf of the reimposition of blue laws. Throughout history these blue laws have been closely linked with a variety of religiously-biased social controls, such as anti-blasphemy and obscenity regulations. Both Catholic and Protestant groups working to "safeguard public morality" have used not only the official endorsement of Sunday church services but also the regulation of "immoral" books or art to enforce their religious ideology on the populace.
People need to remember these things as they face the prospect of legal sabbath regulations. Efforts to recreate blue laws do not occur in a political or theological vacuum. Instead, they are part of a larger agenda aimed at limiting what people might freely choose to do in the name of someone else's religious purity. If your government can tell you that you shouldn't be able to shop on a Sunday because the doctrines of majority Christian sects prohibit it, what else will they start to prohibit for the sake of majority Christian sects?
Any attempt to restrict people's activities on Sundays will obviously also mean that the government is telling people that it is better to attend church or accept a religiously mandated "rest day" than engage in normal commerce or socially oriented leisure activities. If the government uses the law to allow a Catholic church to operate but a Wal-Mart not, the message is unmistakable
But why should my government tell me that I should be in church rather than attending a ball game or shop for clothing? This is patently unacceptable in a free, secular society which values the separation of church and state. It not only favors religion over non-religion, but necessarily favors some religions over others. Such measures can be supported only by those who do not genuinely value other people's freedom of religion. Instead, they value their own religious beliefs over anything that another person might believe
Quite simply, they are religious fascists - I cannot think of a more appropriate name.What would people say if theater owners demanded that other businesses and church activities be restricted so that people would be encouraged to attend movie showings? What if any business demanded that their activities be protected at the expense of all others? These priests and holier-than-thou pundits don't realize - or just don't want to believe - that a free and enlightened society must allow its citizens to freely choose what they do on Sundays. Many Christian churches have a long and despicable history when it comes to allowing freedom of choice to it's members, and this is yet another example.
If we want and deserve the kind of society where we do have the freedom to choose and where options are not dictated by a few churches, then we are going to have to oppose the efforts to impose religious ideology on us. Fortunately, most people - including most Christians - continue to support their right to do as they will on Sundays, but political winds can shift. Ignoring the issue won't make it go away - it has to be brought out in the open and exposed for what it is.
-->