Faith and Politics: State Representative Dave Cheatham

How much impact should an individual's faith have over public policy?
Any public official should have as a top priority the goal of serving God and living a life as a witness for Jesus.  All decisions we make in whatever we do should be directed to that ultimate goal.  In government service it becomes a question of how we serve God by helping make the lives of people better.  Government is an institution created by God to serve certain purposes-to punish what is wrong and to commend what is right.  That should be part of our service.  However, government should not be used to favor a particular religion over another as long as the religion is a legitimate faith with the belief in God.  Cults and other pseudo-religions are not really religions in my mind.

Is an individual's faith relevant as an issue in Elections?
An individual's faith is relevant in Elections in that Elections should be a part of our lives like anything else we do to serve God.  That should mean that we shouldn't lie, slander the character of others, engage in half-truths, or make promises that we know we can't keep.  We should discuss ideas and not other people.  Personal attacks and negative campaigning should never be a part of any campaign.  I'm sorry as a society that we have stooped to doing that.  We must remember in the long term, God is in control and he has purposes beyond whether we win or lose an elections.

How would you define "Separation of Church and State?
Separation of Church and State means that Government should stay out of affecting religious belief and should not restrict an individual's faith.  Government may and should restrict certain religious practices that are harmful or dangerous to the health, or safety of society.  But still, people should be free to have their own beliefs.  It is a one-way street.  Religion and faith should be able to affect government policies and practices, but government should not interfere with legitimate religions.  Restricting prayer in school and the reading of the Bible and the Ten Commandments was never intended to be the affect of the 1st amendment.  Government has over-stepped their authority.  Government's relation to religion should be one of "benevolent neutrality."

Comments

[Don Sherfick]

Kurt, it isn't at all clear what this post is. It seem authored by you but on ther other hand the reference to Representative Cheatham seems to indicate that you are quoting him. Could you you be a little more explicit as to where it came from?

[Don Sherfick]

"However, government should not be used to favor a particular religion over another as long as the religion is a legitimate faith with the belief in God. Cults and other pseudo-religions are not really religions in my mind."

Assuming that your quote of Representative Cheatham is correct, Kurt, I really wonder if that's what he intended to say. As framed, the statement suggests that when the religion is NOT a "legitimate faith in the belief in God", government MAY prefer it. That would seem to turn even a more conservative view of the First Amendment on its head, in that it would now become a government function to make determinations as to "religious legitimacy". Since the term "God" is used, particularly with a capital "G", this seems to suggest that faiths that don't describe their "higher power" in these terms can be disfavored in the law. There are a number of evangelical Christians who consider Mitt Romney's faith to be a "cult". Should the Morman faith be disfavored? And even Romney himself has apologized for a remark made during his campaign implying that athiests don't have the same First Amendment rights as those of believers.

The concept of "disfavoring" one faith over another shouldn't be confused with decisions that have been made from time to time holding that certain practices are harmful to public health, etc., and the courts have upheld laws banning them. Those decisions don't put the government in a role of determining which belief is a "legitimate religion".

The question here isn't whether or not Representative Cheatham or anyone else personally believes that "cults and other pseudo-religions are not really religions". It is whether or not, in entering the public policy arena and upholding concepts of equal protection and the First Amendment, such a belief ought to influence that public policy as it may apply to certain minority faith groups in our society. I would contend that it shouldn't.

[Kurt Luidhardt]

It was quoted verbatim from Rep. Cheatham although posted by me (which is why you see my name). You'll be seeing a number of these this week and the next few as we've solicited some posts from elected officials and others to give us their thoughts on faith and politics.

[Robert]

"It is a one-way street."

It is not a one way street. If you allow a faith and religion to influence government, eventually one of them will take over and begin to enforce its beliefs on the populace as a whole regardless of whether or not all people subscribe to it.

The issue is that like so many Christian fundamentalists, you haven't taken the time to understand what Jesus actually taught. Jesus never advocated establishing a government based on his teachings. Jesus was not stupid, and He knew that such a government would never work. The "kingdom of God on Earth" does not refer to an actual government. He advocated a belief system that was very individualized, that was separate from the machinations of government.

[Ed Fox]

That is a time honored position on government based on faith and religion, nothing new or surprising. Until the eighteenth century, it was practically universal, but then people started to question the assumptions and came up with such ideas as the "social contract", a secular justification for government among men. The American Revolutionaries proclaimed, in their Declaration of Independence, that "governments are instituted among men", not by God. They explicitly rejected a religious test to qualify to hold office. In case it is not clear, a "religious test" is a profession of faith, not a competitive examination. Moreover they proclaimed their right to overthrow governments that did not meet their needs, hardly something that you would do to God's government. Most people at the time were horrified precisely for this reason. That is why the American Revolution (not the war) was so important and remains, today, a beacon to the world.

Many of the ideas "conservatives" value today, including the preeminence of parliament, sorry, congress, as well as the Christian nation, are pre-American, that is they are the very ideas, well established and accepted by most people in 1776 that the American Revolution put in question. It is true that some of the restrictions placed on the federal government with regards to religion were explicitly not placed on the states at first, but by the time that the fourteenth amendment did make them binding on the states, all of the states had adopted them voluntarily.

[Kenn Gividen]

Religion and government have been singular since the dawn of civilization.

Deifying heads of state was common in early civilizations, though conflicts with the clerics was common. Christian theology doesn't allow for government heads to be gods, but notes that God controls kings and, in the NT, reminds us that government officials are ministers.

For that reason governments have tended to persecute competing religions: They are viewed as challengers. The atheist "religion" has been the most vicious in their intolerance of competing religions.

Remember America's colonies were defined by religious beliefs (East and West New Jersey, for example.)

Roger Williams proposed a workable solution: A round table in which no religion was state sanctioned and none was excluded. This workable solution found its way into the US Constitution which forbids the establishment of a government religion.

I wonder if Williams experiment would have survived with non-christian religions represented.

[Ed Fox]

I am not sure what you mean by "singular". In this context the word would mean "odd", but I am pretty sure that is not your intent. If you mean that they have been separate, you could not be more wrong. You do not have to have a deity as head of government, although there are many examples of that arrangement, and some pretty recent, to have state religion, or a state church. Merely to pick the most obvious example, England, against whom Americans rebelled, has a queen who bears the title "Defender of the Faith" and is head of the Church of England to this day. At the time of the revolution, and for years afterwards, anyone who wanted to serve in the government had to take a religious test. (See the career of Benjamin Disraeli.) Americans, in writing their constitution, rejected that idea, moving clearly away from church involvement in government.

I am not sure where you get your NT reference, and Biblical translation is notoriously troublesome, but while "minister" as a church official, and "minister" as a government official come from the same Latin root and imply roughly equal standing in their respective organizations, calling someone "minister of finance" does not imply that he is a clergyman.

I do not remember the atheist inquisition, but perhaps you can refresh my memory.

Do you think that the extent to which the American colonies were defined by their religious beliefs made them different from other societies of the day? What made them different was their agreement to set up a government that was n o t defined by religion.

I believe that the answer to your question would have to be that, to the extent that "Williams experiment" did survive, it did so with non-Christian religions represented.