Draft introduction
Religion has always been an integral part of the American political experience. From the establishment of the first Puritan settlements to the invocation of “God bless American” uttered so frequently by the current president, religion and God have been familiar fixtures not only in the church house, but also in the state house.
Nevertheless, there is a difference between the Puritan settlements of old and today’s government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” While the Puritans made no distinction between community and the kingdom of God on earth, the United States today is an ostensibly secular state. While Jefferson’s “insurmountable wall” may not be either as high or as solid as he might have wished, there are very definite delimiters between state and church action; at least there are in principle.
Practice is, of course often different that principle, and the observation of practical limits between church and state function reveals little that is brightly delineated. From the chief justice of a state supreme court who refuses to remove a monument bearing the Ten Commandments to the community church where candidates offer sermon-like stump speeches, the division between church and state becomes porous indeed.
And yet we have still before us the principled remains of Jefferson’s wall. We have still the establishment clause. We have still the appurtenances of secular state. And so generally we ask why Jefferson’s wall has become (or perhaps has always been) so porous? Why do Americans countenance such an intermingling of the secular state with community of the faithful?
This is more of a sociological question than one properly pertaining to political science. It does suggest questions more appropriate to the discipline, however. Thus, we ask ourselves why churches consciously choose to act politically? This question becomes even more pertinent when the beliefs of certain churches regarding government and God are viewed as part of the premise for church action.
Specifically, let us examine the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Members of the LDS Church accept as scripture the following statement:
We believe that religion is instituted of God; … but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion… . (Doctrine and Covenants 134:4)
Perhaps even more clear (if possible) are these words from Joseph F. Smith, president of the LDS Church from 1901 to 1918:
We declare that from principle and policy, we favor: The absolute separation of church and state; No domination of the state by the church; No church interference with the functions of the state; No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion; the absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs; The equality of all churches before the law. (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, 125)
The LDS Church accepts as a matter of doctrine the separation of church and state. Why then does the Church choose to involve itself politically in certain matters?
