Jane Yoder-Short
August 5, 2022·3 min read

Last month, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert declared: “I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.”

She further declared: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church.”

Where in the Constitution does it say the church is supposed to direct the government?

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but is implied in the First Amendment.

The stinking letter Boebert referred to was likely the 1802 communication between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association, where he quotes from the First Amendment.

He wrote: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that acts of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

When does a law move toward establishing a religion? When does a law limit the free exercise of religion?

A day after Boebert's rant, the Supreme Court ruled that a Washington state school board discriminated when it disciplined a football coach for praying publicly after games. The decision allows public-school coaches to have postgame prayers on school grounds. Is this a protection of religious freedom or a subtle government endorsement of religion?

As my Amish neighbor passes by in his buggy, I'm reminded of their strict separation from the world. They stay out of the political fray. They aren't about to pray in public or lobby to impose their beliefs on others.

The Amish remind us that in many ways we can't be a Christian nation. As a country, are we ready to turn the other cheek, to non-violently return good for evil, as Jesus proposed?

For those of us not detached like the Amish, separating church and state can be messy. We want to bring our faith into public life.

Boebert views overturning Roe v. Wade as a Christian victory. At Cornerstone Christian Center, she told the audience: "This is the fruit of your labor, of your votes, and of your prayers — this is your harvest."

Is this a case of the church telling the state what to do, or is it a minority using pseudo-religion to further a political agenda?

We have different ideas on how to improve our nation. That doesn't mean religious values can't inform the state in healthy ways.

The religious concern for nature care can spill over into environmental activism. This can benefit our nation. 

The religious concern of feeding the hungry can bring compassion to the state.

When pushing a religious agenda, we need to recognize that we are a diverse society. No one faith should direct the government.

Christians would do well to not get sucked into dirty politics. The church can easily lose its vision when it becomes entangled with the state's agenda.

We recall the inhumane treatment of Indigenous kids at church-run state schools. We avoid remembering how Christian rhetoric was used to justify slavery.

Christianity is presently being courted and used as a political tool in our divided society. Christianity combined with nationalism is a dangerous and stinking mix.

Unlike Boebert, who thinks the church should boss the state, Martin Luther King Jr. had a more nuanced vision. He said: "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”

This vision smells of hope.

Jane Yoder-Short lives in Kalona.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-wary-those-trying-bring-161841268.html