Latest • Categories • Groups • Forums

There are 4 choices, 6 votes for Energizer Bunny's debate

Where does religion end and government begin or vice-versa?

The government does not appoint bishops and pastors for the churches. Churches, meaning here all religious organizations, do not appoint presidents, governors, and judges. The state has no role or authority in defining beliefs relating to God and worship. The free exercise of religion, regardless of what that religion is, is to be guaranteed. The state has no role or authority in defining beliefs relating to God and worship. The free exercise of religion is to be guaranteed. Any government should be neutral between particular religions and permit citizens to believe or not believe in God and to engage or not engage in religious practices or belong to religious organizations according to the dictates of their conscience. I firmly blieve that. I realize I am, in this sense, living in a secular nation. Nevertheless, complications exist that confound any simple notion of religious neutrality or pure secularism in the national life. The presence of the so called "civil religion" in my national life does not justify the claim of some that we are actually a "Christian nation." It is not grounds for promoting a "Christian" political agenda. I respect and fully understand the need of the religous and non-religous to feel they are adequately represented by those of euqal beliefs but you know God, Himself, in the Bible did say "Render
to Caesar the things of Caesar, and to God the things of God."

On the other side some secular purists are offended by even this minimal creed and long for a common life utterly devoid of any reference to God. In the news today (June 2, 1998), a California schoolgirl who defines herself as an atheist asserts that it is wrong to require her to recite the pledge of allegiance that contains the words "under God." Enough complexities and ambiguities of this sort abound to frustrate any effort to find some single or simple doctrine defining the relations between church and state or between religion and politics. Our courts are kept busy trying to find workable compromises least offensive to the Constitution and most in harmony with its fundamental intent and directives. I believe the law is the law, but let's face it the law contains alot of grey area for court interpretation. Whether liberal or conservative justices mind numbing job of finding a middle ground within their interpretation of the law as to not restrict any certain group(religous or not). Quite honestly I see where thorny problems arise in trying to steer between avoiding an establishment of religion and permitting its free exercise.

Citizens who belong to religious groups are also members of the secular society, and I see where this dual association can get complicated. Religious beliefs have moral and social implications, and it is appropriate for people of faith, regardless of the particular faith, to express these through their activities as citizens in the political order. The fact that ethical convictions are rooted in religious faith does not disqualify them from the political realm. They are still citizens of their persective governemnts and have every right to be involved in the political process just as like those individuals of no religous bliefs.

Suppose someone says, "If some of you Christians believe that abortion is wrong, fine. But don't try to impose your beliefs on the rest of us by passing laws forbidding it." Personally, I see wrongful insight and confusion such as statemnt as this:

1. It is legitimate for any group of people to try to get a law passed if they believe it will promote the common good. Whether they are successful in getting the power of the state behind any policy depends on whether they have sufficient political power not on whether the legislation they seek is wise or good as judged by those who oppose it. The applies to everyone regardless of their faith or lack of. I think it is appropriate for Christians who are so inclined to get laws passed that make abortion illegal, but not because abortion is judged to be morally wrong by the specific religious doctrines held by them but because it would be a wise and good law in terms of the values resident in the cultural traditions of the nation as a secular society.


2. Every belief that citizens try to express politically is rooted in some philosophy or religion or some set of assumptions about society and its well-being. They do not come from out of nowhere. They are not drawn from thin air. Religious based convictions about society and morality are as legitimate as those that spring from non-religious groups. Thus, Christians, Muslims, or Jews may seek to get laws passed that are mandated by their religious convictions. Such laws are appropriate as long as they have a secular purpose and do not constitute an establishment of religion. Whether these laws are wise or worthy of enactment must be judged by whether they promote the common good as judged by national values not by the fact that they are or are not rooted in the religious faith of those who support them.


3. I believe if people of faith want to argue in the political arena for universal health coverage, they should do so not because the Bible or the Pope authorizes it or because God wills it but because it promotes "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Likewise, religious groups that seek to outlaw racial or gender discrimination should do so because it would be good for society as a whole not because it is part of the system of religious doctrines to which they hold dear.

4. We cannot determine or control the reasons why people vote or support the policies they do or prevent them from convincing others to do the same. In the voting booth citizens are a law unto themselves. They can vote for whatever or whoever they want for any reason that motivates them. It is pointless to demand purity of principle on this matter.

Working out the relations between church and state and between religion and politics requires all the wisdom we can summon.

• Eh

  I do think it's silly to include "under God" in the official pledge of allegiance. To pledge my allegiance to this country I need to admit it is under a God I may or may not believe in? If I don't believe in God, saying the pledge as it is would be a lie, thus voiding the pledge.
  
  I think if is a personal thing someone wants to include God or Allah or Brahman or Buddha in their daily pledge (which counts for nothing anyway as a born citizen), then go for it. You want your deity to help keep your country safe and your goals pure, then good for you. But none of them should be the official pledge.
  
  
  I agree with most of what you said in the numbered list.

  50%  Voted for by Weydon, petethemeat, Eaven-Alexander.

  View 2 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    Weydon
    February 28
    Edit | Reply
    You know, I noticed that whenever I have this endless debate about the pledge, that I forget to mention that when I was in high school I would always stand straight and firmly anounce my allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands. One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.
    
    But that doesn't mean I think other people have to put my religious beliefs into their pledge. In fact, it means quite the opposite.
  • 
    Oral Fixation
    May 23
    Edit | Reply

    Was that edited?

    Did that comment by Bob get edited?

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment:

Title:

Your Opinion:

Comments go on opinions, not here. If a similar choice exists, vote for it instead and add a comment.

Logout    Help    Terms of Use    Contact Us    Content Complaint
Our other sites: Poetry, Critical Poetry, Old Poetry, Stories, Quotations. © Social Design