Separation of Church and State
It seems the rallying cry for the Religious Right these days is that the separation of church and state is an attack on Christianity. Some of the more cagey term it an attack on “religion”, but it is clear that they aren’t particularly concerned with Islamic rights or Hindu rights or Buddhist rights.
This separation is being eroded. A bill is under consideration in Congress which (among other things) would make it illegal to sue or punish a public official for recognizing his religious faith first and his duties second. Judicial rulings based on Biblical teachings would not be subject to appeal if the Judge issuing the ruling was a devout Christian.
The thing is, the hard-line fundamentalist Right seem not to understand that there are only two real differences between their philosophy of government and that of the Taliban and al Qaeda:
1) Which religion they want codified in law, and
2) The means to reach their ends.
Now, to be sure, the second one is a big one. So far we have not seen fundamentalist Christians setting off bombs in our cities (except for the occasional shooting at an abortion clinic), and I don’t mean to suggest that they are (in this regard) morally equivalent to terrorists.
But the fact is, both sides strongly believe in greater ties between government and religion; both sides believe when government and religion differ, religion should win. It’s just that difference of WHICH religion that makes each side see themselves as “defending morality and decency” and the other side as “evil heathens out to destroy our way of life”.
This has led the Republican party to a sort of schizophrenic dichotomy of belief, which appears to be completely invisible to themselves.
On the one hand, current party line pushes for ever more Christian oversight of governmental affairs and ever more Christian basis for laws, while at the same time decrying the recent Iranian elections because they were overseen by Moslem leaders under Moslem influenced laws.
How, exactly, are the fundamental philosophies of these two groups different? And how does anyone NOT see that the founding of the United States not as an atheistic society but as an agnostic one is one of its greatest strengths?
To clarify what I mean by the distinction, the Soviet Union was an atheistic society (at least according to the propaganda about “godless communists” which was fed to American society in the 50s, 60s and 70s), meaning that it did not believe in religion and made atheism the state religion. If you were theistic in any fashion, you were not well tolerated by the Kremlin.
By comparison, the United States is has an agnostic government, one which does not know the right or wrong answer and so stays out of the discussion. The very basis of our society is that government does NOT declare an official religion, nor an official lack of one, but that all governmental affairs should be conducted in a way completely separate from religion, so as not to infringe on anyone’s religious freedoms.
This is not to say that laws cannot be enacted which have a historical basis in religion, most rules that we set up as a measure for how we’re going to relate to one another within our society will have at some point been a tenet of some religion or other. But we should not enact laws based solely on the fact that they exist in some one religion or other. And clearly, this has traditionally been the case.
Take the Christian Ten Commandments. We clearly have laws against murder (#6), adultery (#7), theft (#8) and perjury (#9), but we expressly avoid criminalizing other religions (#1) or their artifacts (#2) or differences in holy day (if any) (#4). As much as those of us who are parents might like it, it is not illegal for our children to disobey us (#5), and trust me, in our capitalist society, there seems for many to be no higher calling than to covet that which belongs to someone else (#10).
And as to #3, tell me the last time anyone in this country was prosecuted for (or even looked askance at for) yelling “G—damn you” at some moron in another car that just cut them off on the road. Certainly Christians should not behave this way, but to those who do not believe in the Christian deity, such an imprecation has no more innate wrongness than to say “May Santa bring you coal!” or “I hope the Easter Bunny brings you rotten eggs!”
Laws which make sense in society, which prohibit infringing on other people’s core rights, such as those against murder, theft and perjury, should be enacted for the good of all of society. Laws which simply serve to legislate morality, criminalizing behavior which does no real harm to society (coveting, for example, or gay marriage or even adultery) have no basis in our government. Behavior on these matters is between a person, their Church, their moral code and their deity(ies). It no more makes sense to try to force non-Christians to have no other deity before the Christian one than it does to enact laws preventing Christians from doing between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday any of the things an Orthodox Jew is prevented from doing during those hours.
This current push by the Religious Right to make us a more Christian society through laws (instead of through proselytization and evangelism, which they remain free to participate in) is no different, morally, from the Taliban ruling Afghanistan or the Ayatollahs ruling Iran. And if THAT doesn't scare you, perhaps you shouldn't be reading my blog.
Copyright © July 7, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net
posted by Liam at 7/07/2005 05:24:00 PM
18 Comments:
Liam,
It is very difficult to comment on your rant here which takes as a given that seriously religious Christians would legislate religion or religious behavior on the rest of society were they given a chance, in spite of no evidence in our 200 year history of any such inclination .
All religions are practised more freely in this country than anyplace else in the world. Do you practise any religion? What is your reasoning that allows you to equate Christians with the Taliban?
Friday, July 08, 2005 12:02:00 AM
Subtle change, Ralph, but I'm not going to fall for it.
I didn't equate Christians with the Taliban. I equated the Religious Right with the Taliban. There is a difference, and I'm quite well aware of it.
I don't want to talk about my own religious beliefs, as odd as it may sound coming from me, I consider my relationship with my creator to be a private matter. However, I have a number of good, solidly Christian friends who are very much opposed to the Religious Right and the things they are trying to accomplish.
I recently saw an interview with one Christian Pastor who said he didn't believe that he, as a religious leader, should be telling his congregation who to vote for, and that personally he felt that neither party had a claim on Jesus, but if he had to pick one party that more closely aligned with his conception of Christianity, it would be the Democrats, not the Republicans.
There was another prominent Christian blogger (I believe he was also a Pastor, although I don't have the link handy) who recently ended an anti-Bush post with "Since when is Jesus pro-war and pro-rich"?
So I'm absolutely not equating all Christians with the Religious Right, any more than I would equate all Moslems with al Qaeda or the Taliban. Both are the extremist fringe of their religion. Both talk a good game and manage to suck in the more moderates of their religion with fear-inducing rhetoric. But neither represents the majority of their religion, I firmly believe that.
And the fact is, to hear the rhetoric spewing from the self-styled leaders of the Religious Right, they absolutely believe that this should be a Christian nation and have laws that are based on Christian laws. Right now Religious Right leaders are objecting to a possible Supreme Court nomination for Alberto Gonzales on grounds that boil down to "he's not Christian enough".
They use fear rhetorical phrases like "attack on Christianity" to describe any proper application of separation of Church and State. They are behind the HR 1070 and S. 520 bills currently under consideration in Congress that (in part) removes from Judges the power to hear cases relating to complaints due to improper use of religious belief in the pursuit of a government official's duties.
This means that if a self-identified Wiccan is on trial for something, and the Judge (a strong biblical Christian) finds her innocent of the charges but sentences her to stoning for being a witch, no other court would legally be empowered to hear an appeal or take any punitive action against that activist judge.
It may not happen, in fact I'd bet against it happening (if for no other reason than that political pendulum I love to talk about, which will inevitably swing the other way, and someone else will come to power and restore all of the rightful separations that may be eroded), but that doesn't mean that isn't the goal that the Religious Right is ultimately after.
Very un-American bedfellows the current administration has allied itself with, in order to win their election.
Liam.
Friday, July 08, 2005 12:25:00 AM
Interesting evasion. Don't have time to adress your response now. Maybe tonight before I have nightmares about horrible Christian judges imposing Sharia law on America.
Friday, July 08, 2005 10:25:00 AM
But I didn't evade, I simply refused to allow you to redefine what I'd said to be something ridiculous that I didn't say.
But I await your response. I do agree that the end result (an America whose elected leaders have their decisions subject to approval by a ruling class of priests) is unlikely to happen here in the U.S.
But I think we get dangerously closer to that in fact (if not in law) if we stop requiring governmental officials to check their beliefs at the door, at least with regard to the fulfillment of their duties.
How is the result (for those who are of a different faith) any different whether there's an overlying Christian group of officials, or whether those who are elected choose to rule based on Christian principles rather than Constitutional ones?
Liam
Friday, July 08, 2005 10:38:00 AM
Liam, your use of the term "Religious Right" is a problem for those who belong to it, including me. Our definition of Religious Right is all sincerely religious people who practise and hold dear their belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and His teachings. Your use of this term paints an extremely broad brush for us. Maybe if you used the names of the leaders of this movement that you describe instead of that term, we could better discuss the issue of seperation of Church and State.
Friday, July 08, 2005 1:17:00 PM
I hate to dispute those who choose to self identify with that group, but...
The definition you've given is not for Religious Right, the definition you've given is for Christian.
A Christian is a sincerely religious person who holds dear his or her belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and holds true to his or her concept of His teachings.
As soon as you throw the "Right" in there, you're limiting the group to only those who believe (as you clearly do) that the Republican party holds closer to those ideals than the Democrat party, and I suspect (although you are more than free to correct me on this) that you do this largely on the basis of the abortion argument. I base this supposition on the vast number of Christian Republicans I know, who base their alliance with the Republicans on this one issue above all others.
I would, by the way, strongly dispute that Jesus in this day and age would be a Republican. As my wife put it the other day, if Jesus were here today, he'd probably be hanging out with the stoners, the homeless and the poor, not the CEOs, rich fat-cats and war mongers.
To me, the concern for the common man that is supposed to be the central theme of the Democrat party is much closer to the teachings of Christ than the every-man-for-himself, making-me-clean-up-my-mess-isn't-fair-to-my-profit-line central them of the Republican party.
In fact, this whole abhorrence for gays and gay marriage seems completely opposite to the teachings of love and inclusion that were the mainstay of Christ's message. I wouldn't presume to speak for Christ on the actual MARRIAGE part of gay marriage, but this wholesale hatred of gays for being gay (and other groups for being who they are) is COMPLETELY foreign to the “love thy neighbor” teachings of Christ, no matter how one twists the message of love to try to justify it.
Now, perhaps the broader based group of Republican leaning Christians has been usurped by a vocal minority, but when we hear people talking in the name of the Religious Right, they're always talking about supposed “attacks” on Christianity in this country, trying to make it sound not (as Ralph said, and as I agree with) that this country is great in it's freedom to worship who you like, how you like, but like somehow we're one step removed from tossing Christians in with the lions to watch the carnage.
The Supreme Court got it (IMO) exactly right in their two rulings on the Ten Commandments recently. In the one case, a monument to the Ten Commandments alone in a Court House has no business being there, because it tells anyone walking through the doors “You will be judged here on Christian rules, even if you aren't Christian”. At the same time, a display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display of the historical rule of law, including displays of law from other historical religious and non-religious sources is perfectly acceptable, because it's a testament to law and order and not to one particular religion's laws.
And yet the vocal members of the Religious Right are out in force calling the case that did not go their way an example of Judicial Activism and an attack on Christianity.
But to return to the start of my note here, I think it's highly improper of you to attempt to define only those who are both Christian AND Republican as being proper Christians, or rather, to assign Republican leanings to all proper Christians, which is what you have attempted to do.
If abortion, or gay marriage for that matter, is the #1 most important political issue in the world TO YOU right now, that's fine, and you're welcome to feel that way. But you can't speak for every other good Christian out there who may believe that poverty or hunger or perhaps universal love for neighbors (even gays, Moslems, abortionists and terrorists) may be more in line with their concept of Christ's teachings. Heck, Christ wasn't even speaking only in the abstract, he was still professing love and forgiveness for the “terrorists” of his day (those who were nailing him to a cross!) as he was dying ON that cross.
We can at a later date, if you wish, discuss the selectivity with which Christian groups choose to apply the laws of the bible, pointing at passages against homosexuality as absolute, iron clad word of God that homosexuality is wrong, but ignoring other passages advocating stoning for relatively minor crimes, or suggesting that offering up your daughters for rape by an unruly mob in order to get them to leave you and your friends alone is somehow the moral course of action. But that selectivity is absolutely there, and sufficient to allow two groups with wildly different priorities to both fairly claim to be good, devout Christians, while ascribing themselves to vastly different political agendas.
Liam.
Friday, July 08, 2005 3:21:00 PM
Gosh, Liam, your responses are just as much fun to read as the articles!
Friday, July 08, 2005 4:04:00 PM
I know it's a matter of symantics(I hope the spelling is corrrect), but in the mind of a majority of the Religious Right my definition would be theirs. It is obviously not yours and I think that speaks to the disparity of distance from which we each approach the subject. I in no way imply that any christian would have to be Republican. There are single issue voters that are Democrats and Republicans, and their are multi-issue voters that are either. I had secondary reasons for wanting you to use the name or names of the heads of this Religious Right and that is so that I could better identify who you mean't.
As to your supposition that abortion is the main theme making me Republican..I'm not! I'm an Independant. Looking back on my first comment, I can see where I wasn't clear enough. But, the issue of abortion is what caused me to leave the Democratic Party years ago. Today, I vote mostly Republican because the candidates of this party more closely align themselves with my ideas than do the Democratic candidates, or the Independant candidates that I have had a chance to vote on. One last thing on the abortion issue is that in England they voted to make it legal, and it is. In the USA we had laws making it illegal and a very small number of Judges decided for all of us that it was now legal.
When you use the terms CEO, rich fat cat and war-monger and dump them all in the same boat, you are indeed useing a wide brush to describe a group of people that you seem to hold in disdain.
When you listed as the central theme for the Democratic Party as concern for the common man, and then list what you did as the central theme of the Republican Party, you are displaying feelings instead of fact. No where in the Republican Platform can I find these terms; nor can I find this "concern for the common man" in the actions of the national democratic politicians.
Homosexuality is a tough subject for us all. Loving our neighbor and not giving the OK to his sinful actions is a fine line to walk as we are all sinners(myself included would you believe). Christ did not preach on homosexuality, but I have never read where he encouraged someone to sin. He always forgave and told them to sin no more.
The Ten Commandments are displayed in so many of our historical Political Places that it would be almost impossible to get rid of them. The reason they are so prevelant is that they occupied such a high place in the determination of the laws of the land. To say they didn't and that they are not a part of our history is to deny history. I too have heard those stating that much of what they disagree with is attacking Christianity and I don't agree with all of it. I must say that some I do ie Chuck Schumer stating that a certain Judge could not be confirmed due to his deeply held religious beliefs; Kennedy saying that there must never be a Judge confirmed who will take back a woman's choice; Judges who hold that starting off a high school football game with a prayer is unconstitutional.The Constitution says(I'm trying to quote but will probably only get it close) that the Congress shall make no law abridging the right to practise one's religion.
Friday, July 08, 2005 4:12:00 PM
First, to Linda, thanks. :-)
As to the long reply, you make a lot of very good points. To start, not in order, but with the first point that leapt out at me, with my phrasing of "supposed to be the central theme of the Democrat party" I was trying to make clear that I did not feel they'd held true to their ideals. In point of fact, I believe both parties have strayed from the ideals and priorities they held even 20 years ago. It's part of my disdain for both parties, although as I've said many times, it's a lot easier to express my dislike of the Republicans because the Democrats, poor emasculated things that they are, can't really work up the collective power to tie their shoes. Hard to kick a group when they're down.
I also wonder where you're located, not that it matters. My wife and I have had discussions about this at length, because she comes from the south, where welfare abuse is apparently rampant. I come from the northeast, where it's much more of a theoretical. The average poor person in my area is more apt to be an old VT farmer, far too proud to ever take welfare, than he is to be a freeloading sponge on society, which I gather is a much larger problem in other geographic areas.
I bring this up, because for me, it helps to define why the liberal ideology may be more in line with the "thinking man's" philosophy up here, while down there it might be the conservative ideology. If the largest problem you face on a daily basis is people who persist in having multiple children so they can get more welfare, and who have their children declared crazy so that they can get the extra disability checks, and when (as I read somewhere) as many as 30% of the people in your area are abusing the liberal social programs, I can see where it would be much easier to reject the liberal social agenda as ineffective and rife with corruption.
Not that it matters very much, I agree with you that the programs that the liberals have come up with so far don't work. I've said before that in my view the liberals have the more attractive philosophy, but no idea how to make it a reality, so they continue beating their heads against the wall with the same programs that don’t work, while the conservatives are to my way of thinking slightly less attractive in philosophy, but a lot more efficient at getting things done. And I’ve also said that both major parties have strayed significantly from the liberal and conservative core philosophies on which they are supposedly based.
I doubt you’ll disagree with me with regard to the Democrats, but for an example on the Republican side, one has only to look at the dichotomy between the “fiscal responsibility” of the Republicans of the 70s and early 80s, vs. the massive and record setting deficits of the current Republican party. Or, for another, the split between the “Smaller government, get government out of our personal lives” Republican party of years ago vs the major push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the Federal level, when that very clearly is a states rights issue and should remain there.
As to “activist” judges, I always try to understand what the Justices actually ruled rather than the end result, before I start complaining. For an example of a ruling I didn’t like, but agreed with, there was the case a few years ago of a gay Georgia couple, who appealed their conviction on sodomy laws all the way to the Supreme Court, who ruled that it was not their jurisdiction, that this was a state’s rights issue, and so threw the case out. I didn’t like the ruling (I have a fair number of gay friends), but I agreed that it was not a Federal or Constitutional issue. On the other hand, the recent case of the “eminent domain” ruling I think was incorrect. It very definitely related to the Constitution, and I think it accepted a much-too-broad definition of “public good” in writing its majority opinion.
Now, you asked me to name for you the names of the people whom I see as leaders of the Religious Right. I’m going to have to defer until I can spend some time on that issue, because it will require some research to look up some of the names. There are some, of course, who come up regularly. Tom Delay. Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition. Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. James Dobson and Focus on the Family. Donald Wildmon and the American Family Association. I found a site where, in order NOT to offend the broader based Religious Right, these people were called the “Theocratic Right”, but regardless, they call themselves the Religious Right, and are the vocal ones we hear from. Notice how again and again they use “Family” in the name of their group, a subtle psychological way of making it seem as though anyone who disagrees with them is anti-family. Well, I disagree with a lot of what they say, and I think my wife would agree you’d have a hard time finding anyone more pro-family than I am.
As to using the terms “CEO, rich fat cat and war monger” in one phrase, that was just one case of grouping people together, and I did not, in any of the cases, mean to imply any connection. I also grouped together stoners with the poor and homeless, as well as “gays, Moslems, abortionists and terrorists”. None of the lists were supposed to imply that there was a significant overlap between them, only that they represented various categories of people who my example at the moment applied to. And in truth, I don’t disdain two of the three members of the grouping you mentioned, in their own right. There are good CEOs and bad ones (we can all name examples of the bad ones: Ken Lay (Enron), Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco) and John Rigas (Adelphia) just to name three). Similarly there are rich philanthropists who spend their lives aiding others and evil rich people who do everything in their power to get more riches by any means necessary. I do have disdain for war mongers. There are times when war is necessary. There are times when it is not. I think I’ve made it clear that in my opinion, Afghanistan was necessary, Iraq was not (or at least, not at the timing and for the reasons we were given).
On the topic of homosexuality, perhaps it’s because I have quite a number of gay friends, but I have come to believe that they do not choose to be homosexual, that they are born that way. Call it a birth defect, call it a genetic error, or simply a variation, I do believe they are born that way, which leads me to view homosexuality as no more of a sin than being born retarded or albino, or even white, black or asian. It simply is. I have seen the passage in the bible that says it is an abomination (Leviticus, 18:22). That same chapter, 18:19 says that you should not be with a naked woman during her “uncleanness” which is generally considered her monthly menstrual cycle. Would most Christians feel the same vehement need to condemn me for the fact that I do not refuse to share a bed with my wife during her time of the month?
The phrase you were looking for is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and so my opinion on the coach starting practice or a game with a prayer depends entirely on the league. A private league, organized with private dollars can pray any way they like. A town league, organized by and supported by the local government should NOT be leading official prayer, because that becomes a government sponsored establishment of religion. It is a team paid for with public funds, organized by public officials, all members of the public should feel free to participate in it, without feeling like their children are going to be preached to by a differing religion.
I don’t agree with Schumer quote, I have no objection to Christians holding office, nor Jews, nor Moslems, Hindus, atheists or anyone else. If Schumer had said “So and so should not be confirmed because he/she has shown a marked inability to keep his religious beliefs from coloring his rulings, in contrast to the laws in question”, that would be legitimate. Anyone who has deeply held beliefs which would prevent them from administering the laws of their society should not be a judge in that society. An anti-death penalty person should not be confirmed as a judge in the Texas criminal justice system, for instance. If the law in Texas calls for executing certain types of criminals, then it isn’t up to the Judge to disagree, it is up to the Judge to fairly apply the laws as they exist and impose the punishments prescribed in the law.
So, for example, any Christian who takes seriously the section of Jesus’ teachings that says we are not to judge one another, that it is only God who can judge us, that person should not be a judge (certainly not a criminal judge), because they will find the job contrary to their personal beliefs, and will be unable to do the job as described under the law. But it is not their Christianity, per say, that makes them unfit, it is the conflict between their Christian beliefs and the requirements of the job for which they are being considered (by the way, other religions have similar prohibitions on judging fellow humans, and the same would apply to those who hold those beliefs strongly).
Anyway, I’m working the evening shift tonight, and so I should stop this and get to work.
I’m enjoying this debate, thanks for sticking with me!
Liam.
Friday, July 08, 2005 6:17:00 PM
After reading your comments above I concede that you are right on many points. The Democratic and Republican Parties have strayed from their core principals and many have become pigs at the trough of the federal teat(especially the Republicans who are supposed to be the party of small government). There are a few others who havn't and for these I pray and work.
You mention some of the Religious Right leaders whom you say come up often, and I assume you mean that in a derogatory light. Included in this list is Tom Delay, Tony Perkins, and Dr. Dobson (notice I left out Pat Robertson). These three I have respect for and would invite you to take a closer look at the work of all three of them. I know Tom Delay has been demonized by the liberal parts of the press as of late, but if you notice, since the Dems have allowed the investigative body of their own to start the investigation, the press has shut up because their is nothing that he has done (as of yet to be identified) that is criminal, and loads of Dem leaders are now back pedelling and filing reports from as much as 10 years ago on lobyest sponsored trips; failing to report these trips properly is what they accusse Tom Delay of being guilty of. Tony Perkins and Dr. Dobson express family values in a practical sense. If there is something I am overlooking in their writings and daily activities that back up your statements concerning them, please let me know so that I can broaden my horizons on these matters.
As to your statement that homosexuality is a genetic disorder, etc. I agree with you that all homosexuals are either born that way, and/or shaped into that lifestyle through evironmental
upbringing. Neither I nor the Bible, nor any Church that I know of condemn one for being homosexual. It is the active homosexual lifestyle ie homosexual acts that are sinful. There are many heterosexual lifestyle acts that are sinful, but just being heterosexual isn't sinful.
If there is a law, which the Supreme Court says there is, that states that no government(any governement, local or state) sponsored team can begin a game with a prayer, then isn't that "making a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? It seems to me that if someone doesn't want to pray that particular prayer and still wants to play in the ballgame, we shouldn't hold that against them. Also, I don't think the government should have any say in such things, it should be left up to the local population.
I cannot disagree with your very narrowly defined application about religious beliefs (your example of the Judge was good).
Just as an afternote, you talk about your wife and you discussing how the environment of welfare is so different where she was raised (apparantley in the South) as opposed to you being from the north east. It helps me to better understand some of the differences between my and your attitudes.
Sunday, July 10, 2005 11:02:00 AM
Liam,
My point is asking whether you practise any religion was an attempt to get a better handle on why you see such a threat from the religious right which if I follow the thread of later comments equates to conservatives who are also Christians. Unlike Linda, I don't find a logical argument which leads to the conclusion that these religious right leaders would, given the chance force their will on others. Likewise, what is your prrof that there is, or has been, a judge who happens to be a Christian, who would apply the law in any way other than its intent.
Just because there are other people saying this things doesn't mean that they are true and that you can assert them without any proof.
Sunday, July 10, 2005 4:22:00 PM
I have a neighbor.
My neighbor doesn't give a whole lot of thought to political issues. Instead she tends to adopt as her own point of view whatever she is fed by her pastor. She identifies herself as an evangelical Christian.
Throughout the 2004 Presidential campaign, she tried to convince us that to vote against Bush would be a sin.
Honest. In those words.
Another fellow from her church once made the statement that he thought it would be a wonderful thing if everyone in the county became Christian.
Now, I am not making the mistake of attributing their attitudes to the leaders of the Religious Right. However, they certainly would consider themselves to be of their constituency. And they would see no problem whatsoever with Christianity being written into the laws of the USA.
As for proof of a judge "applying the law in any way other than its intent" ... the obvious answer is the recent Ten Commandments cases. The law seemed very clear to several appellate courts , and the State Supreme court, and the US Supreme court, that it was wrong to display the Decalogue in a government setting. The judge disagreed, placing his own preference before the law.
Monday, July 11, 2005 5:02:00 PM
In answer to Ralph's points.
Ralph said, "My point is asking whether you practice any religion was an attempt to get a better handle on why you see such a threat from the religious right which if I follow the thread of later comments equates to conservatives who are also Christians."
I answer, "Not Christians who are Republicans, although by definition, all Religious Right persons are (on the right, not left) Republicans and are religious (assuredly Christian). One could easily be a Christian (I am!) and a Republican (card carrying) and still NOT be for integration of Church and State. I think that in an ideal country, in some Utopian world all would be Christian and love Jesus and follow the rules our Savior gave us, thus eliminating the need for Government altogether. Being against the integration of Church and State merely means that someone sees what a bad idea this is for the USA. We respect all religions in this country in a legal sense. Those things which are specific to the Christian religion, like many, many verses against divorce in the New Testament, are a really good idea, but aren't good legislation. Seriously, follow it through, if we decided that Christianity were the National Religion, what do we do with the Jewish population, the millions of Muslims that are American? Our Christian values are similar, but aren't close enough to be the same.
Those in the Religious Right want Legislation against gay marriage, which while possibly building a more stable society (pushing the deviant gay population further to the side). Pro Capital Punishment, which I am against in almost every circumstance. Integration of prayer, not right to prayer for individuals, into schools which would make a segment of our society which isn't deviant become less mainstream and alienate whomever happened to be in the minority. etc. etc.
What is so beautiful about the New Testament, The book of my faith, is that it tells individuals how to behave, what is right and what is wrong, and it teaches of the Grace of The Lord when we deal with others. If he can forgive 7 x 7 x 7 times, then we must go at least that far. It isn't a book of Laws which we need to enforce, just one we need to share and model.
Ralph said, “Unlike Linda, I don't find a logical argument which leads to the conclusion that these religious right leaders would, given the chance force their will on others.”
Ralph, they wouldn't see it that way. They would see it as doing what is right. They are deluded Christians. They absolutely seem to love the Word, but want it integrated into legislation. We are a Christian Society, not a Christian Country. And the difference is HUGE. The way from one to the other is subtle.
Ralph says, “ Likewise, what is your prrof that there is, or has been, a judge who happens to be a Christian, who would apply the law in any way other than its intent.”
The judge in Atlanta who posted the 10 commandments even when told NOT to post them.
Ralph says, “Just because there are other people saying this things doesn't mean that they are true and that you can assert them without any proof.”
But, it doesn't mean that they aren't. You know that there is proof. Our Republican leaders are more and more often wanting more.
Monday, July 11, 2005 7:18:00 PM
Sorry, I'm way behind on replying.
First, to Anonymous...
I don't believe saying that government sponsored teams can't engage in led prayer is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There's NOTHING that says the children themselves can't opt to pray before the game, or say a quick prayer before coming up to bat or before a big play. However, once it is an open and public league, the coach is effectively an agent of the government, and as such, he (or anyone else in a position of leadership or authority in the league) leading the entire team in prayer before practice or a game is government establishing religion.
Think about it from this standpoint: Suppose your town has a little league, and your child ends up on a team being coached by a devout Moslem, and as practice starts just at the time of one of the five prayer times each day for Moslems, he leads the whole team (including your child) in a Moslem prayer, including bowing towards Mecca, etc etc. How would you feel then?
THAT'S the difference between a town (government) organized and sponsored team and an inter-faith church softball league. In the second case, the league is being organized and paid for by a private group. They can do whatever they like. The town league, or a school league? No way. They're paid for by all of our taxes, organized using resources paid for by all of our taxes, it's simply not fair to Jews to have a prayer if the coach chooses to end with the words "In Jesus' name we pray" or to Moslems, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or atheists for that matter.
My wife, who is by the way a far more devout Christian than I, agrees with me on this one.
Thanks for the comment!
Liam.
Monday, July 11, 2005 10:03:00 PM
Next, Ralph.
As someone later said, the Religious Right is, in my view, a subset of Christian Republicans. It is certainly made up solely of Christian Republicans, but I absolutely believe there are Christian Republicans who don't agree with the Religious Right's agenda.
Several people have pointed it out, but that Ten Commandments judge is a perfect example (thanks Ross!). Even after being told by every court that the monument had to be taken down, he defied the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and tried to leave the monument up.
Beyond this, we all know people. We all ARE people. To err is human, it is in the nature of people to be flawed. How do I know that there are Christian judges who would allow their beliefs to color their interpretation of law in ways never intended? For the same reason that I know there are people in every walk of life who allow their beliefs to cloud their reason. Because we're an emotional creature, and sometimes we allow our feelings and beliefs to override our judgement and logical side.
Who among us hasn't done something incredibly stupid when in the throes of first love, or as the result of anger at some minor or imagined slight? Who can honestly say they've never made a mistake?
Look, if we didn't allow our beliefs to cloud our judgement, we would have the same level of complete disagreement we have between the left and the right, both sides so certain that their world view is correct that they simply can't conceive that the other side might actually have a point, given a different world view? That's why we have so many people on each side demonizing the other side as being intentionally bullheaded or stupid. They simply don't grasp that there are certain fundamental assumptions about the true nature of the world that the other side doesn't share.
The fact is, we all, every one of us, engages in bias. The more intelligent among us know this, and try to recognize it whenever possible, but... another example.
When talking about the typical American family, most of us assume the one we grew up in. My parents were pretty much Ward & June Cleaver. Dad went off to work, Mom stayed home, raised us, kept the house neat as a pin, did the laundry and had his dinner on the table when he got home. My parents never divorced (they are still together), they never beat us, never abused us, they were pretty much excellent parents.
And so when I hear stories about rampant child abuse, it's hard for me to internalize them at an emotional level, because it's out of my experience. I try not to let this internal bias prevent me from seeing real child abuse and trying to aid those who are or were victims of it, but it simply isn't in my world view to assume that sort of stuff goes on regularly.
Liam.
Monday, July 11, 2005 10:16:00 PM
Ross,
Thanks so much for your addition. It's great to have you reading, and even above the fact that we've been out of contact for far too long, it's also really nice to have a Jewish point of view.
There's a certain comedy in a group made up entirely of Christians talking about, or even trying to understand, the viewpoint of minority religions in this country, or of religions who have such recent experience with what true attacks on their faith can mean.
Liam.
Monday, July 11, 2005 10:19:00 PM
And to the other Anonymous (I assume from the different writing style that you are not the same person), thanks for backing up some of what I've been saying, that not all conservative-leaning Christians necessarily believe that we're heading in the right direction, with what seems (to me, anyway) to be a steady slide towards more codification of Christian beliefs in American law, or at least in the interpretation thereof.
I think that covers all of the comments here that I've been remiss on. I think there are others, elsewhere, let me go see if I can find them and comment there.
Thanks, everyone, for your participation! I'm about ready to give up on the humor blog because it doesn't feel like I've got many people reading, it's so much more fun over here where I know people are both reading and willing to call me on it if they think I'm full of something...
Liam.
Monday, July 11, 2005 10:23:00 PM
Thanks for the welcome, Liam.
Two clarifications to my earlier comment: the word county was not a typo, I did mean county, as in subdivision of a state, not country, as in nation. Just don't want to exaggerate the statement of the gentleman from my neighbor's church.
Second, I actually like my neighbor, and she likes us, despite our political disagreements. :-) The same goes for most of the rest of you Christian folk. I don't want a Christian theocracy, but I'm comfortable with the current Christian ascendency in this nation. It sure could be worse. It has been worse, elsewhere in the world, and recently too.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:36:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home