The separation of church and state is a concept with which most Americans are at least somewhat familiar, as it has been cited in numerous court cases, but how many of us truly understand what it means and how it came to be? Congresswoman Susan Wild joined The Reverend Beth Goudy from the Metropolitan Community Church of the Lehigh Valley for a discussion addressing these questions and more on a recent Zoom meeting which was also broadcasted on Facebook Live.

Background

Reverend Goudy began the session by sharing some background on the concept, which comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, dated Jan. 1 1802: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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 would ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Church and state

Susan Wild was an appropriate participant for the discussion, as she earned her Juris Doctor from George Washington University Law School in 1982 and practiced law for 30+ years before she ran for congress in 2018. She admitted that although she rarely litigated these types of cases specifically, as a member of the Congressional Free Thought Caucus, she believes “very, very firmly” in separation of church and state.

She said her “belief in this is by no means an attack on religion. It is simply espousing the principle that it is incredibly important to make decisions at the governmental level that are free of religious interference and principle because if we allow those principles to infringe on the governmental rights, we in one way or another are condoning discrimination against large groups of people.”

She also noted that this concept not only protects freedom of religion, but “freedom from religion” for non-religious people as well.

Goudy posited that the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses are important and good for religious groups because they protect those groups from being burdened by governmental issues.

She mentioned that without the oversight of the state in religious matters, religious organizations and denominations don’t have to worry about the state imposing taxation or dictating who they can or cannot ordain as a Reverend, for example. Wild also mentioned that in nations that lack the structural protections that the USA does, governments have used religion as a cover to impose oppressive restrictions on its citizens.

She quoted former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in saying that she believes religion is “a matter for the individual conscience.”

Cake shop/Hobby Lobby

Some of the discussion centered around specifically-related court cases in recent memory. Regarding the highly-publicized Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case, in which it was ruled that the Colorado bakery was not legally bound to provide services to a same-sex couple, Wild said: “I have a serious problem with the Supreme Court saying that a bakery can hide behind religion to discriminate against potential LGBTQ+ customers.”

On the equally famous Hobby Lobby case, in which the court ruled that a privately-owned, for-profit corporation was not in violation of the Affordable Care Act by opting not to cover contraceptives under its insurance plan, she expressed her opinion that going to work at a retail store is not the same as going to work at a Catholic church, for example, thus employees shouldn’t be expected to adhere to such standards.

Minority rights

Another query asked what municipalities and communities might do to vigorously protect the rights of religious minorities. Land use is the number one point of contention at the local level, Wild said, and “religious organizations often feel that they are subject to unfair scrutiny.”

A Muslim community is often subjected to heightened standards in planning the construction of a mosque, for example, if their fate is being decided by a board which objects to their faith, she said.

When asked about a strategy to impel congress toward anti-discrimination legislation, Wild said “in unity there is strength… concerted, grass-roots lobbying is very important.”

Employment

discrimination

The issue of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity was decided several weeks ago in the Bostock v Clayton County Summary case, in which courts ruled that an employer cannot discriminate based on LGBTQ+ status. She continued that properly vetting political candidates and motivating people to vote are two things we can do. She also said that she and her fellow lawmakers can “make sure that the text of their (drafted) legislation is strong and that it can withstand legal challenges.”

Christian Nationalism

A viewer asked Wild “how big a threat do you perceive the Christian Nationalism movement is to our democracy?” In response, Wild characterized the movement as “a fairly small group of people,” saying “(nationalists) don’t by and large exhibit Christian values.” However, she indicated that they are still a “true threat” to our democracy, as they are attempting to enforce their version of Christianity upon all citizens.

COVID-19

Goudy and Wild also touched on some unrelated topics during the discussion, taking questions from viewers on topics such as COVID-19 and the upcoming Nov. 3 elections. When asked for an update on COVID, Wild said “science is science, we must observe science. Recognizing science does not mean abandoning whatever our religious beliefs might be.” She reaffirmed that states which reopened earlier than others are now dealing with spikes in cases and hospitals are quickly becoming overwhelmed. She also strongly advocated mask-wearing. “The reactions we have seen to COVID is one of our greatest threats to democracy… it should be our common goal to want to eradicate this disease,” she said, comparing it to drunk driving. “We need to go back to an old-fashioned way of thinking, we are all in this together and are operating for the common good.”

Regarding the 2020 election, Wild was asked if this is going to be a “free and fair” election, and what we can do as ordinary citizens to ensure that it is. She called it “a critical issue that federal legislators have to take up” and advocated providing resources to states and municipalities. “Voting by mail is no less a democratic value than showing up at the polling place and voting in person,” she said, indicating that she has hear about people feeling disenfranchised from not getting results for weeks or not being able to get into their polling places because of long lines. “That is what distinguishes us from authoritarian countries, we protect the right to vote,” she said.