As we advance (or is it
retreat?) into the primary season we are likely to see a “faux pas” of wedge
issues as part of the cultural wars that pols use. Issues about religious beliefs and the
separation of church and state context are type of these. Examples include lingering
issues over religious exemptions to the Affordable Health Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but
new ones continue to pop up.
A
recent one concerned a family bakery owned by a Christian who refused to make
wedding cakes for homosexual couples. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that
he can’t refuse them. The baker was on Fox News' "The Kelly File" to
present his point of view and a counter view was argued by Rob Boston. You can see the snippet at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXZTBd0GFUk
A sad aspect of
contemporary life is that our political and judicial systems are quite damaged
and sometimes sweep things under the rug rather than addressing
challenges.
I happen to be reading Jon
Meacham’s American Lion: Andrew Jackson
in the White House ( a
free google books version is available.) which provides a view of when a
wedge issue was dealt with pretty directly by populist, 7th
president Jackson rebutting early attempt by Evangelicals to break through the
wall of separation by inserting prayer as a wedge issue into the political
process.
Meachen notes (see also
a related
article) that on religion Andrew Jackson was a surprising figure in
American life. While respected the religious aspect of life he refused to
formally join the Presbyterian church while in public life. He thought it would be seen as craven to wave
one’s religion at people. And while grew more faithful as he aged presidentially, as far as politics he was essentially Jeffersonian on church and
state, endorsing Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” He did so partly because he
believed the church could be corrupted by the state and certainly in part
because he could see it corrupting politics in his own time.
Jackson did have real battles with the clergy on moral issues and their calls for the
formation of what was to be called the “Christian party in politics.” Jackson
was a political enemy of the Evangelical Protestants of the day, who denounced
his policies and supported his opposition - the Whig Party and Henry Clay.
In the midst of these cultural wars political
opponents like Clay counted on the Evangelical vote to defeat Jackson in the
election year of 1832 when Jackson ran
for a 2nd term. And a cholera outbreak (natural event but looked on as divine punishment by some) provided an issue –should the Federal government
intervene in a terrible cholera epidemic by appealing to prayer? Jackson refused to endorse legislation setting
up a national day of prayer to address the cholera outbreak.
As discussed by Meachem,
Jackson was called on by members of Congress along with “influential” religious
leaders (they of the 2nd
Great Awakening) to call for a national day of prayer and fasting in
response to a cholera epidemic. It does harken back to an era when infections
were not understood and religious tradition dictated appeals to divine power to heal what doctors could not. Cholera was perceived, sort of like Hurricane Katrina to some, as divine retribution among many pious evangelicals.
To them prayer was a necessary as
part of the remedy.
In a word Jackson refused (and prevailed). To be sure he softening
the argument by not challenging the efficacy of prayer. Indeed he could say
that hoped “that our country may be preserved from the attacks of pestilence....
But he opposed
government participation in something that should be up to individual
conscience and not act for government.
For to make the federal government involved would be, he said:
“While I am constrained to decline the designation of any
period or mode as proper for the public manifestation of this reliance. I could
not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the
Constitution for the President “
and he feared that this
religious encroachment could:
“disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this
country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General
Government and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security
which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from
the political concerns of the General Government.”
It might not be Supreme
Court law, but it is historical precedent that contemporary, populist pols might
look to: avoid craven responses and be guided by constitutional limits and founder wisdom to handle these type of wedge issues.
