2. Separation of Church and State is a Biblical principle. God has established jurisdictional parameters for the operation of the Church and of the State, as well as for the Family. For example, church leaders should not be operating the civil courts and politicians should not be appointing church elders. This is jurisdictional integrity.You just can't separate beliefs from politics. Even if the Federal government gets constitutionally restricted to mere administrative role, with no authority to define the nation's culture and values and to endorse (let alone - fund) any kind of non-government organizations or special interest groups, even then we'll have pro-highway MPs versus pro-railway MPs, there will be those advocating for more infrastructure spending versus those campaigning for fiscal austerity... And all these views will be based on guess what - beliefs. Because we don't yet have a solid social, economic and managerial theory which is based strictly on logic and reason. You want Christianity out of politics? Ok, then how about getting environmentalism, humanism and Marxism out of politics?
3. Separation of religion from politics is not possible. There is no such thing as moral neutrality, so all people come to politics with a religion or worldview. The honest question is always not WHETHER religion and politics but WHICH worldview and value system will impact politics.
4. If people, when they call for the separation of religion from politics, really mean the separation of Christianity from politics, they should have the integrity to say so. Most people today who call for the separation of religion from politics are not calling for the separation of Humanism or Islam from politics; rather it tends to be a rallying cry against the influence of Christianity on our politics.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Separation Of Church And State — What It Really Means
Here's a position statement on the Christian Governance website, which explains why separation of church and state is different from the separation of religion from politics:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
You are railing against a misimpression of the principle of separation of church and state. It does not remove religion from politics. You are free to vote based on your religious views.
The government, though, is constrained not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state--as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
That primer is a great example of how theory can differ from practice. At least if the religion in question is Christianity. And if you go through the list of actual precedents - you'll see the double standards, such as: Advertising Islam on public property is diversity, but displaying the Ten Commandments violates the principle of separating Church and state. Desecrating the Bible is art, desecrating the koran is a "hate crime" and so forth...
Same in the public circle: it's ok to call upon the public to believe in global warming (in spite of numerous known falsification scandals and all the facts which disprove the warm-mongers' claims,) but Christians, defending fetal rights or traditional marriage must make sure they only provide "non-Biblical" arguments.
So, Tim Bloedow is right to say that for many nowadays, "separating Church from state" effective means keeping Christianity out of politics; that while the separation principle singles out the Church, but it doesn't apply to the cult of "mother gaia" or to the humanist manifesto or even - to the mosque.
And again, legal experts can say whatever they want, but their actions speak louder than words.
Christianity, as you surely realize, is the dominant religious influence in our society--by far. To cast Christianity as a victim rings hollow. Indeed, it is reason for worry, since powerful majorities have throughout history played the victim to gather up fear and anger as motivation to "fight back" against weaker, smaller groups and justify further steps to exercise dominance over them.
The cases summarized in the Wake Forest paper do not in the least support your hypothesis.
The topic of climate change has nothing to do with religion and, thus, separation of church and state.
That rhetoric is quite common nowadays - since Christianity is the religion of the majority, there are many who believe that, to "even up the play field", separating religion from state should mean - separating the Church, but not the mosque or the gaia cult. But that's not really separating religion from state, it's discriminating against Christianity while encouraging other cults. Again, some may find this situation satisfactory, but for all of us that are discriminated against (which are the majority) - that's still a discrimination.
As for the topic of climate change - religion doesn't necessarily have to be about God and the Bible. Believing that "mother Earth" needs us to sacrifice some of our day-to-day conveniences, that unless we comply, we may ruin Earth's climate, with little credible scientific data to support such claims - that too is a religion. A pagan tree-hugging cult, but still - a religion. Yet you won't hear anyone rebutting them with "you're only saying that because you're 'green'". However, the rebuttal such as "you're only saying that because you're Christian" is quite common.
So - either the separation of Church and state applies to the mosque and to the gaia cult and to all other beliefs that are out there in the public square or it's time to stop calling this a separation and use some other name. Such as - affirmative action against Christianity or something similar. That would be a lot more honest.
Or, obviously, another option is to admit that separation of Church and state does not mean keeping Christianity out of politics and to stop the discriminatory practices against Christians once and for all.
My "rhetoric" has nothing to do with evening the playing field, much less discriminating against Christianity. As an atheist, I have no interest in promoting one brand of theism over another. My interest is in keeping the government from promoting or opposing any religion, so each of us is free to exercise and express his or her religious beliefs without expecting that the government will endorse them or fearing that the government will oppose them or endorse those of others. (Yes, I see here the tension between religious views on homosexuality and laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation; read on.)
My point is that you misapprehend the principle of separation of church and state to constrain you from voting in keeping with your faith. To be sure, some who purport to champion the principle have mistakenly voiced similar thoughts. The courts, though, clearly describe and implement the principle otherwise.
I understand that some think that the government discriminates against them and their religion when it precludes them from discriminating (as the government would characterize it) against gays. The courts have occasionally confronted issues concerning whether and, if so, when the government may require people to do (or not do) things contrary to their faith. They have generally ruled that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion, but if the government enacts laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g, laws concerning traffic, pollution, taxes, contracts, fraud, negligence), it can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them. (Were it otherwise and anyone could opt out of laws with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it, the government could hardly operate.) While the government has this power, it may (and sometimes does) choose to relieve individuals of this bind by including conscientious objector provisions or the like in the law.
That you don't understand or agree with the evidentiary and analytical basis for recognizing climate change hardly renders scientific and policy decisions on that topic "religious." Object to those decisions all you want. Don't bother beautifying and complicating your objections, though, with specious accusations the whole thing is "religious."
The examples you gave in your third paragraph leave nothing of the assertions you made in the first two. You suggest that Christians feel discriminated against when they are precluded "from discriminating (as the government would characterize it) against gays". So we have the government that believes that homosexual relationships are equal to the actual marriage between a man and a woman, (that two men or two women can actually form a relationship which is both unitive and procreative in nature, just the way the true marriage is) and, that not accepting homosexual relationships as such constitutes a discrimination.
In other words, we have government beliefs clashing with Christian beliefs. And the courts, which were supposed to seek truth and justice, simply side with the government beliefs, using the "separation of Church and state" mantra to explain why no arguments from Christians should be taken in consideration - even though the Christian point of view is self-evident, while the government point of view must be defended by a bunch of "anti-homophobia" and "anti-discrimination" laws.
The recent ruling in California is a great example. The 138-page essay of a homosexual judge could be titled "my beliefs", because it contains nothing but his own personal beliefs that two men or two women can actually form a marriage, that all those opposed are just a bunch of bigoted folks, how their views are based on Christian beliefs, how allowing people to vote based on their Christian beliefs is demeaning to homosexuals and how, for the sake of Equality, these votes should be declared null and void. All that - just so that his beliefs would come true and those relationships which lack the procreative part and where the unitive part is either nonexistent or at the very least - severely impaired, could be legally recognized as actual marriages.
(Read on)
As I said before, religious beliefs don't have to be about God and the Bible. The example I gave is not the only one when people refuse to see self-evident facts and cling to their beliefs. Remember the Soviet Union which kept insisting that its economic theory was the best even when butter was rationed and people had to wait hours in the lineups to buy a loaf of bread. Or those believing in man-made climate change - most of the data they base their claims upon has been discredited, so their theory is based largely on beliefs... What I mean is - when you take Christian beliefs out, some other set of beliefs is going to fill its place right away. And that's what most of those who stress the notion of separation, are looking forward for.
I understand that for you, personally, separation of Church and state means "keeping the government from promoting or opposing any religion, so each of us is free to exercise and express his or her religious beliefs without expecting that the government will endorse them or fearing that the government will oppose them or endorse those of others". That however, has been around for decades; it existed even in Duplessis' Quebec. Nowadays, for those who keep demanding even further separation of Church and state, that actually means - keeping the Church out. Yes, you personally, may have no interest in promoting one brand of theism over another. Others however regard promoting other religions as another mean to keep Christianity out of the public square - be that under the guise of "promoting diversity" or "holding back the religion of the majority".
Post a Comment