Church and State

Henry VIII was disturbed that the Pope wouldn’t allow him to divorce the Queen. He wanted a natural heir to the throne and believed that as the supreme monarch of England, he had the right, indeed the duty, to produce a successor. So, Henry did want any crazed ruler would do. He pulled the English church from under the Papal umbrella and created the Church of England, the Anglican Church. With generous crown subsidies, the Church of England became an extension of the British crown, and church and state were intertwined in the affairs of the people. Blasphemy became a crime against the state as well as a violation of church canon. The admonition of Jesus to “render unto Caesar” had become blurred because of the indistinguishable differences between church and state concerns.

Fast forward to the early Nineteenth Century when the Danbury Baptist Association from Connecticut wrote to President Thomas Jefferson and inquired about the nature of their relationship with the federal and state governments as outlined in the Constitution. Although Jefferson had not been an instrumental player in the drafting and ratification of the governing document, he replied to the Baptists that, in his view, the Constitution expressly forbade the government’s interference in the affairs of the church because of a “wall of separation.” In essence, Jefferson appeared to believe that the reason for the “freedom of religion and expression” clause in the Constitution was to prevent the formation of a state-sanctioned church similar to the Church of England. The Baptists were fearful that “unapproved” doctrines or churches might be thwarted, but Jefferson sought to assure them that anticipated role of government was to be one of tolerant indifference rather that one of endorsement or hostility.

As we have noted, the role of the federal government as designed by the Founders has been distorted in many different ways. One of the most egregious perversions of original intent has been the relationship between the government (state) and the believing community (church). The role of the federal government has been transformed from a “hands-off” detachment to one of active hostility. At the same time that the federal government’s anti-religious posture has expanded, the power and self-determining rights of localities have been severely undermined too. The power of federal pronouncements and court decisions has been extended to the states and local jurisdictions. The hostility has been ramped up to the point that a local county is forbidden to display the Ten Commandments in or on its courthouse. According to religious tradition, the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses and were to be the personal and societal foundation for the people of God. Three of the largest bodies of faith in the world (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) honor Moses and his relationship with God as integral elements of their traditions of faith.

The federal interference in matters of faith and issues of local control are symbolic of the overreaching and oppressive facets of the Too Big Unconstitutional Government. The First Amendment, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment are blatantly disregarded as the Nanny State enforces its will. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority, the moral imperative or the popular support to willy-nilly discard critical portions of the Constitution that it does not like. The Feds do not have the authority to implement the desires of the ACLU and other discontented fringe groups by trashing the Constitution. In matters of faith and local control it seems obvious that citizens must become “dumpster divers” in order to retrieve, restore and re-implement the principles of Constitutional government as designed some two and a quarter centuries ago. The biggest obstacle is that the government has the guns…the big ones.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com      or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

Alone in the crowd.

The current debates surrounding various issues at all levels of government expose a fundamental tension inherent in self government. Who should reign supreme, the state (the collective) or the individual? The friction can be characterized in a number of ways, but one of the more common ones is “security versus freedom.” This is a false dichotomy because when one looses freedom, then security is at risk. In other words, when others make your choices for you, who will guarantee that those choices will be the optimal ones for you? As Ben Franklin stated,”Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.”


In a political sense, the tug-of-war between the individual and society is fundamentally confined to democracies or republics, that is political systems that have a broad franchise with clear choices for voters. One-party states and tyrannies limit the individual and forces him or her into a collective mode. In an individually based structure, the citizen can choose to vote, act or think with or for the group. The collective or statist organization discourages or prohibits individual behavior. Thus, individually-centered communities can choose to become more collective or statist, but members of a tyrannical society cannot promote or encourage individualism without facing ostracism or bodily peril. To reiterate an old cliché: you can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube.

For a free people to ask the government to do more for them leads to an inevitable slide into tyranny. Each new role assumed by the state chips away at the bedrock of individual freedom. Again, an old cliché: the Golden Rule of business and government, he who has the gold…rules. They who have been ceded the power will wield it. After some time the state will not wait for the power to be given to it, it will assert its authority and assume the power. The nanny-state exercises power to protect the people from themselves, but as government continues to unabatedly become larger, the state begins to use power to protect itself from the people.

People who live in democratic societies may choose to become more collectivist for several reasons. A misplaced sense of compassion may lead them to conclude that “society” has an obligation to care for those in “need.” Human nature and our unique differences assure that the compassionate nirvana is never achieved. There are and always will be individuals whose circumstances place them out of the mainstream. The call for government remedies for an increasing number of perceived shortcomings leads to enhanced government power. Massive bureaucracies are developed to address the needs of the individuals, and after a time, it is discovered that some are “falling through the cracks.” New programs with greater government power are created to assure that all are treated fairly.

Political considerations are another motivation for increasing state influence. Often driven by ideology, statists believe that their way, their belief system, their method of governing is far superior to any alternative. Once they have their hands on the reins of power, they do not release them. They nurture the government leviathan so that they may exercise power and control. Dissent is either ridiculed or crushed.

Indifference is a major contributor to the loss of freedom and the growth of the state. Softball games, television shows, dining out, family vacations and a myriad other activities compete for thoughtful consideration. Fighting for individualism requires energy, passion and knowledge. It’s easier for people to leave the battle to others and kinda’ hope for a good outcome. Once individual rights have eroded to the tipping point, then the indifferent ones wring their hands and mutely cheer for the warriors who charge the barricades

Insolence is a big contributor to growth of government. Certain elites, either via education or wealth, determine that they alone are worthy for charting the course of the nation. The other citizens, they believe, lack the sophistication and knowledge to steer the state through perilous times. They implement programs that patronize the recipients, but none-the-less cause the government to grow as they make more people dependent on their largesse.

A final attribute that I will identify as a freedom-eroding, government bloating enabler is ignorance. Citizens don’t care, or they want more from government so they don’t have to do it themselves. They ignorantly sell themselves into serfdom because they believe they’re getting something for nothing from the government…or “I’ve paid taxes all my life, and they owe me this.” Some of them drool and grovel for government jobs because of minimal layoffs and rather slack work requirements.

Clearly, the descriptions that I have laid out above are not exclusive. Some big-state enhancers combine several of the categories. In my view, all are dangerous and toxic. In a future blog I will examine individualism and its motivations. Then, in a later one I will examine ways for freedom loving people to challenge the collective impulse.

Please feel free to comment. I cherish your feedback-positive or negative. If you prefer, you can email me at cnpearl@woh.rr.com