Bishop Tom Curry wants to get rid of the image of the “wall of separation”–but not because he’s against religious liberty. Interesting article. Curry is an unusual Catholic bishop, in that he does not believe Catholic schools should be looking for state funds (through vouchers or any other means), as it would lead to state involvement in internal school matters (”he who pays the piper calls the tune”). He notes that the First Amendment binds only the state, not the church, and not individuals. Congress is bound–it can’t make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I think Curry’s being a bit naive, though, in not seeing this as a protection of individuals from churches with which they disagree. That was the historic problem which led to the disestablishment cause. When nations favor churches, and grant one privileges that another doesn’t have, dissenters suffer. Catholicism was of course the great offender for most of the past 1700 years, but plenty of churches followed her lead when they were favored–Lutheranism in Germany and Scandinavia, the Reformed churches in Geneva and New England, Anglicanism. Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were the pioneering colonies that showed a new way, a different way, and their experience was what led to the First Amendment.
I think “wall of separation” is appropriate. It’s a term coined by Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist association:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
I’ll keep the metaphor, thank you.
Leave a Reply