On Pope John Paul II’s most recent, and probably last trip to the United States, he made some comments concerning the relationship between religion and government that, suitably, is most relevant to America’s political structure.

The pope, predictably, enthusiastically supports the principle of religious theories guiding one’s political beliefs. This is an assertion with which I can agree.

The separation between church and state that is held in such high regard in this nation is an important principle by which to live. But this does not apply to one’s personal beliefs.

There is a very fine line between letting one’s religious beliefs help guide and shape legislation, and letting those religious beliefs become legislation.

But that line, however fine, is a distinct line that needs to be recognized if tyranny is not to reign in our representative democracy.

So on what side of this fine line does the pope fall? In political terms, the “not so good”side.

“Every generation of Americans needs to know that freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought,”he said during an address.

So far, so good. This is a principle by which any democratic capitalist will live by: democracy works when everyone has the right to do what they want, but democracy works best when everyone does what they should.

The pope continues: “Can the biblical wisdom which played such a formative part in the very founding of your country be excluded in that debate?” This rhetorical question was aimed at the issue of what part religion should play in government.

Here’s where the pope starts to lose me. This “biblical wisdom” of which the pope spoke is truly remarkable in that our founders created a document that allows itself the maneuverability to remain relevant in a democratic society hundreds of years after its conception.

However, it is this same “biblical wisdom” of the framers of the Constitution that thought up nasty little items like the three-fifths compromise and the law that allowed only white, land-owning males over a certain age to participate in democracy. So this “biblical wisdom” to which the pope refers doesn’t seem either too wise, or, in the way I understand the bible, to be very “biblical.”

The pope continues: “Would not doing so mean that America’s founding documents no longer have any defining content, but are only the formal dressing of changing opinion?”

If lack of defining content means a document that allows itself to grow to include people of other cultures and beliefs to participate in what ideally should be the closest thing to a perfect working government, then I’m all for a lack of defining content.

And if our federal documents becoming just “formal dressing or changing opinion” means that as our society becomes more educated, we can do away with institutionalized prejudice. Ican probably tip my hat in favor of eliminating such prejudices as sexism, racism, prejudice against the poor and indigent (wealthism?), homophobia and discrimination against the handicapped that the Constitution was originally interpreted as supporting.

Perhaps the most vital comment the pope made that is most relevant to the current state of American politics was his conclusion to these rhetorical questions.

“Would not doing so mean that tens of millions of Americans could no longer offer the contribution of their deepest convictions in the formation of policy?” the pope asks.

No, it wouldn’t, actually. The difference is again slight, but vital, and is the basic sticking point between the “Religious Right” and the rest of America.

Citizens have every right to let their religious beliefs guide their fundamental views and shape policy. It is when they attempt to let their religious beliefs become policy and infringe on the rights of others who do not subscribe to the same beliefs that we tread on dangerous ground.

Religious political zealots, or maybe all of us, need to understand that simply because our particular beliefs are not written down in the law books as institutionalized policy does not mean our rights are being infringed upon.

It is when we use our own personal beliefs, no matter how righteous they may be, to step on the toes of others, that democracy truly does not work.

Allowing others to pursue their personal convictions independently and freely is the true meaning of democracy guided by moral righteousness.

---

Tim Davis is a junior from Carlisle. He is the editor of the opinion page.