In February, 2023, the meeting to consider and discuss the Town of Hampton warrant articles will reconvene, as it does every year and here is what Mad Dog intends to say at that deliberative session. Comments and improvements are welcomed. We have some time to think about it.
This is a time when the Separation of Church and State are under attack.
This year, as, I am told, every year for the past 50 years, we revisit the warrant article which provides for taxpayer support, from a town government account for the Catholic Church's Miraculous Medal Parish Sacred Heart School.
Last year, the treasurer of the town School Board told us that of all the invoices she pays for the Church about 65% were for the school nurse. What was left unsaid is that what she was really admitting is that 35% of those checks were written, as the Principal of Sacred Heart has said in her thank you letter in the Seacoast News 35% was spent on computers, textbooks and other sundries of the normal operating expenses of any school.
So there was then and is now no doubt the school--and there is no difference between the school and the Church-- is being supported by taxpayer funds. There is no dispute about that part.
What has changed is in the intervening year, the US Supreme Court has said that in the case of a religious school in Maine, where there is no public school available, the state could pay tuition for students to go to the religious school. So the separation of church and state is under attack, although the circumstances in Hampton are different: We have public schools available here.
Lauren Boebert, a Congresswoman from Colorado, among others in Congress have attacked the whole notion there should be a separation of Church an State.
There are 2 arguments for this separation: one is legal and one is spiritual.
The legal argument is simply that the 1st amendment, the very first sentence of the Bill of Rights begins: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.
This has always been taken as "the establishment clause" forbidding a state established religion. But Justice Thomas or Justice Alito might well argue this could be taken to mean government may make no law either establishing religion or forbidding the establishment of religion. A bizarre interpretation, but we are talking about Alito and Thomas.
So, if the 1st amendment is not clear, why should we not allow the state to establish religion? Why is Boebert wrong?
First we need to be clear what established religion might be. If the town of Hampton declared by warrant article: The Catholic Church is the official religion of the town of Hampton, would we not all agree that would be an establishment of a state church? Show of hands: anyone disagree that would be state established religion?
But that's not necessary for a religion to be established: If the state pays the priests, pays for the upkeep of the church, paints its walls, buys the crucifixes, that, too is establishment of religion. They do that in England.
But why should we not do that?
Well, we could look to history: all the wars fought over religion from the crusades to India/Pakistan all the blood soaked stories, from Henry VIII beheading multiple wives to establish the Church of England.
Christopher Hitchens observed that for people to behave really wretchedly they need the voice of God to direct them. The Taliban which arrives at a school and drags out the teacher and beheads him for teaching girls which offends the teachings of the prophet: Who would do anything that hideous unless driven by God or Allah? Who would fly airplanes into buildings unless told to do so by God?
Atheists would never do such things because their moral codes, derived from the societies they live in tell them murder is bad, whereas for the true believer, if God tell you to murder, that might be an exception.
And so, lastly, let us consider the story of Abraham and Isaac, which is especially cogent and relevant to tonight's decision: As you know, Abraham gets up one morning and God says to him: Go kill me a son. Take your son up to the mountain and slit his throat. So, Abraham, who worships God and is completely obedient, to demonstrate his devotion to God, takes his kid up the mountain and well, you know the rest...
But a secular person might ask: Wait a minute: Would Abraham not ask himself, is this really God speaking? Is this God's will? My God is a just God who loves all his creatures. Would my God have me slay this innocent child? I must have been deceived. Perhaps this was the voice of Satan, deceiving me!
So you need to have rationality intervene to interpret the voice of God.
Now, I know some of you have come here tonight because you got a phone call or text message to come support your church, to vote for this warrant article as you always have. But what I am asking you to consider tonight is this: Would your God, in fact, would your own Pope really want you to place funding your church above the Constitution of your country? Would your real church want to place you in that position, when there are other ways to fund your church?
Think about that before you vote for this warrant article.
No comments:
Post a Comment