February 10, 2008
Church and State
Posted by ryan at 02:42 AM in politics , religion . | 4 Comments
"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
Comments
|
Did you write this? or was it found somewhere? Either way, here here! I couldn't have said anything better. Posted by: John G at February 14, 2008 3:36 PM |
|
It's from a speech Obama gave a while back. Posted by: ryan at February 14, 2008 3:38 PM |
|
"This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. " So .... an American's view held for religious reasons somehow makes it less valuable than an American's view that is held for a secular or relativistic reason? So we have turned an amendment originally designed to protect religious freedom and expression a full 180 and turned it into "you're opinion does not count in America if you are religious". It doesn't get any more messed up than that. Yikes. I am so glad he actually came out and said that. Now we know. Posted by: Dude at February 21, 2008 9:22 AM |
|
No, you came out and put those words in his mouth. I've read Obama's comments a few times and nowhere can I find anything resembling "your opinion does not count in America if you are religious" in his words. He says himself that he is a religious man and that religion helps shape his values and opinions. However, religion-specific opinions have no place in politics, whereas universal concerns do. The key here is religiously specific. If a law cannot be defended without invoking religion, then it should not be law. Otherwise you are not protecting religious freedom, you are mandating a religious view. Posted by: ryan at February 21, 2008 9:24 AM |