Last class we discussed various issues at the forefront of many recent political debates, addressing them from both the conservative and liberal sides. However, the arguments on certain issue discussed had a moral tinge to one or both sides’ points. One person even brought up the fact that religion has more to do with a person’s view on certain issues than the way they identify themselves politically. This statement lead me to the question as to whether some sort of separation of church and state is possible.
In a realistic sense, our morals are usually based on our faith or religion and since laws are usually based off of some sort of moral, religion cannot be separate from the state law making process. While I would not suggest that those in charge of making laws should put aside their personal beliefs when implementing laws, protecting the rights of American citizens should be the guiding force for laws rather than their religious convictions.
For example, during the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney used his Mormon faith as the reason he voted in favor of state laws regulating abortion. As a non-denominational Christian, I’m not entirely sure of the doctrines of various churches regarding the issue of abortion. However, even though I support the woman’s right to choose, I view abortions as morally wrong. Granted I’m not government official with the ability to influence policies, I personally feel that if I can separate my own personal convictions about the issue to support something that protects the rights of women, those with influence should be able to do so as well.
JFK once said he believed in an America where separation of church and state was absolute. I hate to burst his bubble, but no such America exists…and most likely never will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think though, in regards to your comment about abortion, that the state can still take a stance that doesn't implicate religion. For instance, why can't the government simply emphasize more family planning (which is really what the abortion thing comes down to) instead of trying to make abortion illegal or legal?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if our freedom of religion is the thing keeping church and state together. That's not to say that I don't think freedom of religion is good. I guess what I'm trying to say with this tangent is that, from the Kelsenesque point of view, we have conflicting interests when it comes to our subjective religious beliefs and the more objective (far-reaching) effects of government. And so, by the very nature of our religious freedoms clashing against each other, it is impossible to take religion out of the debate. Although, to me, it seems like it can be.
I think there's a difference in saying Separation of Church and State is defined as not allowing your religious leanings to influence your political decisions and a Separation of Church and State defined as freedom of religion and no state-sponsored religion. It would be impossible for anyone to divorce their religious beliefs from their decisions. It is something that resonates with you and can define your value set. People are attracted to religions often because they hold the same truths as that religion.
ReplyDeleteAs long as everyone is treated equally before the law without regard to religion and laws aren't being written restricting religion or endorsing one religion over another, I think it is alright to say that the United States has Separation of Church and State in the sense of the second definition above
I agree; a true separation of church and state will most likely never be achieved in America. It's been over 200 hundred years since the First Amendment, but we are no closer to reaching a secular society now than we were when the US Mint slapped "In God We Trust" on money back during the Civil War, or Congress added "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s.
ReplyDeleteFor evidence of this one need look no further than the most recent Presidential election. How many times was Barack Obama questioned about his religious background, or outright attacked for "hiding" his alleged Muslim faith? Even now, there are some ignorant people among us who don't believe he is a Christian and hold that against him.
The social attitudes of Americans have evolved to the point when we can elect a Black man for President, but we still can't put aside a person's religious affiliation no matter the direction of his or her moral compass.
When we talk about the separation of Church and State, we aren’t asking the American public to divorce their religious views from their political leanings. Its more than that
ReplyDeleteThe separation of church and state means a number of things. It means that our laws do not aid a particular religion, our schools do not endorse religious teachings (such as creationism), our government does not give preferential treatment to certain religious organizations.
So I agree that the public will always infuse their religious morals into political debates, but our government can keep religion out of the lawmaking process.
I think that you are correct with most of your arguement. I would say though that it is difficult to keep church and state seperate because it is very difficult for people to free their personal beliefs when making laws. And ones beliefs are commonly influenced by their religious views. THerefore I agree that seperating church and state is a rather difficult thing to achieve.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above comments that the separation of church and state is not asking people to divorce their political beliefs from their moral and religious leanings, that wouldn't be possible, let alone practical.
ReplyDeleteIt requires that there be no state sponsored religion, and no discrimination based on religion within the state, and that laws do not favor one religion over another.
Are we there yet? Of course not. It will take an evolution of the attitudes of Americans, but it's a different kind of separation of church and state.