Archaic constitutional language on religion holds us back

I liken the struggle to change state constitutions to adapt to the moral and legal imperatives that come out of the First Amendment to a professional rugby match where both teams are locked in one huge group of men in what the sport calls a scrum.

Arm to arm locked together and shoulder to shoulder, both teams pressing against each other, progress is measured in inches because each side refuses to surrender any field advantage with the goal of stripping that football from the other side.

There is not much difference between opposing sides in the political arena who also fight to win a different kind of game - to lower or raise the wall that separates religion and the state in America. South Carolina’s history of constitutional debate concerning the role of religion, especially in regard to the position of the governor, confirms just how important inches are in an equally brutal political game.

South Carolina has had seven state constitutions between 1776 and 1895. Lawmakers have worked on and contended with the rights and limitations of religion from colonial times to today.

In 1776, for example, the state constitution established the predominance of the Protestant religion as the official state faith tradition. Much of that was inspired by an aversion to the Church of England, the official religion in colonial times. Clergy were prohibited from running for public office as well.

The 1778 Constitution specified that an elected official had to “acknowledge the being of God and believe in a future state of rewards and punishments.” Obviously a lot has changed since then and these requirements would be declared unconstitutional today. Yet, article 4 section 2 of the current Constitution on the qualifications to be governor it clearly says, “No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being.”

Even to this very day we still have on the books a test for religious office in our state. This law is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against establishing a religious test for elected office. The state Supreme Court, in 1997 in Silverman vs. Campbell declared it unconstitutional, yet, the language remains in the state’s constitution even though it has no actual meaning.

Why can’t our elected officials amend our state’s Constitution? Does removing this statement diminish us or our ethics as a state? Does it threaten our culture? What does the Supreme God idea mean and is there an accepted definition that every faith tradition could accept? What about folks who do not have a religion or are not sure about religious affiliation? Does this mean that they, too, cannot run for the state’s highest elected office? Lawyers tell me this statement is more or less ignored. If that is so then why not simply strike it from the state constitution?

The answer to this question may require us to leave the legal arena and enter the today’s culture wars. Some may say that the effort to do so would create a political nightmare. Opening up this discussion about revising the language could lead to all sorts of political distractions in South Carolina. It would not only be opening up a single Pandora’s box but a number of them.

Is it possible that part of the explanation stems from a deep seated strain - a kind of cultural and national DNA - where Americans resist letting go of a19th century ideal of American identity.

America is a God fearing nation, and elected officials must embody that value to be suitable for elected office.

The idea of removing the requirement that the state’s chief executive cannot deny a belief in a Supreme Being is in actuality only a symbol from an old world still clinging onto a rapidly changing world that has left it behind.

I support creative and legal ways for our state to acknowledge the general sense of us being a nation in reverence to a universal God. Yet, I realize why folks who reject any belief in God or who are not sure what they believe will understandably react by feeling excluded from the American political and social culture on many other more important kinds of religion-state issues.

If America is supposed to give its citizens freedom of or from religion, then does keeping the old language that the South Carolina governor must affirm the existence of a Supreme Being move us backward or forward in this make believe rugby match between religion and state?

If we cannot even deal with this question how will we ever find a reasonable approach toward solving contemporary issues between religion and state which truly deserve our immediate attention?

This story was originally published June 13, 2016 at 6:32 AM with the headline "Archaic constitutional language on religion holds us back."