If Only the Founding Fathers Had Anticipated This...

Although this issue has been discussed previously, I feel as though   this article by Stanley Fish well articulates the crux of the complexity of the separation of church and state in a present day context. The title, Politics and the Pulpit (Once Again) is even suggestive that this is not an issue that will obtain a resolution anytime soon.

The context of this article lies within the definition of a tax exempt entity added by Lyndon Johnson in 1954 stating that, “does not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” Currently a bill has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee that would repeal the Johnson amendment.

This addendum provides a very legitimate question that we’ve discussed before over where a pastor falls within that clause? Fish lays out the two sides of the argument again, pointing out that each supports their claim with the first amendment. I personally find myself understanding both sides and swaying back and forth on this issue. I recognize that it is completely inappropriate for a pastor to endorse a candidate from the pulpit given the Johnson amendment. However, I understand the other side when it claims that “is expected to exhort their parishioners to act in accordance with religious truths, not simply in the privacy of the home and church, but in the world.”

Fish analyzes the conflicting sides nicely with:

"And that means that there is no way for [both sides] really to speak to one another because each begins with a different conception of the proper scope of religion. No court or legislature could adjudicate that difference, for if there is one thing everyone agrees on, it is that the state cannot specify what religion is or is not, cannot tell its citizens what should be the content of their faith. The First Amendment, invoked by both sides, cannot settle the question if there is total disagreement about what the question is."

Religion is a field of such subjectivity that history is going to reevaluate its role in our government over and over again. Fish concludes his article by stating that there is no answer and that the resolution is purely political as “either the Johnson amendment will be repealed or it wont be.” As James Morone explained that American History can be traced from revival to revival, this issue is going to be appealed and repealed based on what point in that revival wave we are currently in. When the founding fathers accepted Jefferson's "wall of separation" it was clearly a different time with different complications. As our country and society evolves, new government programs and institutions are going to be questioned in relation to religion time and time again.