"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." ~George Carlin
"People who govern in the name of God attribute their own personal preferences to God, and therefore recognize no limit in imposing those preferences on other people." ~Justice Douglas Johnstone, Alabama Supreme Court
Interesting article in the Daily Beast: "Britain's Embrace of Gay Marriage." The standout quote in the article, for my money, is this: "Britain is a largely secular society these days, and at least as far as same-sex relationships are concerned, a much more civilized place than was the case in years gone by."
This, of course, will cause Republicans-slash-fundamentalist-Christians in this country to shriek and head for their fainting couches, but it just reinforces my belief--as a religious person--that there should be no co-mingling of religion and politics whatsoever. Injecting religion into politics inevitably leads to discrimination, corruption and bad law, on one side or both. Religion--any religion--is only for those who choose to believe in it, not the population at large.
There are reasons why the First Amendment to the Constitution starts off like this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." All the things the Founding Fathers could've said, and they began by prohibiting Congress from establishing an official state religion? They must've felt the separation of church and state was damned important.
Too bad modern-day Republicans, for all their blathering about "original intent," have completely lost sight of it on this subject.
Showing posts with label separation of church and state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label separation of church and state. Show all posts
October 1, 2011
May 28, 2007
Politics and Religion, Part II
This essay is not as focused as it could be, I think, but I basically agree with it. The separation of church and state is narrowing in this country, and it is entirely the fault of the faithful. Not only the faithful in high places (e.g., Georgie), but the faithful who believe they should be sticking their faith into something where it has no business. An especially egregious example of this comes from Mr. Dobbs' essay:
This week the head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, basically threatened his faithful with denial of heaven if they don't support amnesty for illegal aliens. The good Cardinal said: "Anything that tears down one group of people or one person, anything that is a negative in our community, disqualifies us from being part of the eternal city."
That is way over the line. It is manipulative and tyrannical, to say the least. Just because this jackass is a Cardinal, he has no right telling me what I should think or believe. He also strikes me as being incredibly presumptuous, as he's basically dictating who God should or should not let into heaven. I don't think God strikes people dead nowadays, but I know if I had the power, I would be sorely tempted to let loose a lightning bolt.
Even more to the point, he's violating the very Scripture he claims to believe in. There's a telling little verse which shows how Jesus reacted to those who wanted to put him in a position of rulership. The context of the story is following a miracle--the feeding of possibly 8-10,000 people with five barley loaves and couple of fish.
"When the people realized what a great miracle had happened, they exclaimed, 'Surely, he is the Prophet we have been expecting!' Jesus saw that they were ready to take him by force and make him their king, so he went higher into the mountains alone." (John 6:14-15, The Living Bible)
I've heard Jesus called a rabble-rouser, and in a way I suppose he was; he certainly railed against the dominant paradigm of the day. The dominant religious paradigm, that is. If he had wanted to, he could have whipped the Jews into such a frenzy they probably would have revolted long before 66 AD (and been about as successful, no doubt).
He did not do that. He did not try to be their king, even though they were expecting--wanting--a Messiah to free them from the Roman yoke. Instead, he battled with the Pharisees and preached the only solution to the Jews' (and our) problems--the Kingdom of heaven.
This is further illustrated in what he said to Pontius Pilate.
"Then Jesus answered, 'I am not an earthly king. If I were, my followers would have fought when I was arrested by the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of the world.' Pilate replied, 'But you are a king then?'
'Yes,' Jesus said. 'I was born for that purpose. And I came to bring truth to the world. All who love the truth are my followers.' " (John 19:36-37)
(Snarky aside: I love that last sentence. One wonders if the good Cardinal has ever read it. He certainly doesn't seem to be paying attention to it.)
It seems to me that if one is claiming to be a Christian, one should follow Christ's example. If Christ, while on earth, did not get involved in the politics of the day...should Christians?
James, Jesus' half brother, answers with an emphatic No.
"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." (James 4:4, New International Version)
Just think how different history would be if Christians had followed what their Bible actually says. (I'm not a confirmed history buff, so anyone is welcome to disagree with me on the specifics; but I think we can all agree that the Catholic Church and its offshoots have been far too incestuous with governments for too many centuries.)
The Crusades would not have happened.
The Inquisition would not have happened.
Galileo would not have been condemned and imprisoned.
The genocides of the New World would have been lessened considerably (although I doubt eliminated altogether, since there was so much racism directed against the "savages" found by Columbus and the Spanish missionaries).
At the very least, if so-called Christians had stuck to what they do best--helping the poor and preaching the Gospel (note: this does not include forced conversion)--we would have a helluva lot more respect from non-believers in today's world, precisely because we had not tried to force our beliefs on everybody else.
This is why I do not vote. This is also why I look at people like Cardinal Mahoney with a great deal of skepticism, because I certainly don't want him watching out for my soul.
This week the head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, basically threatened his faithful with denial of heaven if they don't support amnesty for illegal aliens. The good Cardinal said: "Anything that tears down one group of people or one person, anything that is a negative in our community, disqualifies us from being part of the eternal city."
That is way over the line. It is manipulative and tyrannical, to say the least. Just because this jackass is a Cardinal, he has no right telling me what I should think or believe. He also strikes me as being incredibly presumptuous, as he's basically dictating who God should or should not let into heaven. I don't think God strikes people dead nowadays, but I know if I had the power, I would be sorely tempted to let loose a lightning bolt.
Even more to the point, he's violating the very Scripture he claims to believe in. There's a telling little verse which shows how Jesus reacted to those who wanted to put him in a position of rulership. The context of the story is following a miracle--the feeding of possibly 8-10,000 people with five barley loaves and couple of fish.
"When the people realized what a great miracle had happened, they exclaimed, 'Surely, he is the Prophet we have been expecting!' Jesus saw that they were ready to take him by force and make him their king, so he went higher into the mountains alone." (John 6:14-15, The Living Bible)
I've heard Jesus called a rabble-rouser, and in a way I suppose he was; he certainly railed against the dominant paradigm of the day. The dominant religious paradigm, that is. If he had wanted to, he could have whipped the Jews into such a frenzy they probably would have revolted long before 66 AD (and been about as successful, no doubt).
He did not do that. He did not try to be their king, even though they were expecting--wanting--a Messiah to free them from the Roman yoke. Instead, he battled with the Pharisees and preached the only solution to the Jews' (and our) problems--the Kingdom of heaven.
This is further illustrated in what he said to Pontius Pilate.
"Then Jesus answered, 'I am not an earthly king. If I were, my followers would have fought when I was arrested by the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of the world.' Pilate replied, 'But you are a king then?'
'Yes,' Jesus said. 'I was born for that purpose. And I came to bring truth to the world. All who love the truth are my followers.' " (John 19:36-37)
(Snarky aside: I love that last sentence. One wonders if the good Cardinal has ever read it. He certainly doesn't seem to be paying attention to it.)
It seems to me that if one is claiming to be a Christian, one should follow Christ's example. If Christ, while on earth, did not get involved in the politics of the day...should Christians?
James, Jesus' half brother, answers with an emphatic No.
"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." (James 4:4, New International Version)
Just think how different history would be if Christians had followed what their Bible actually says. (I'm not a confirmed history buff, so anyone is welcome to disagree with me on the specifics; but I think we can all agree that the Catholic Church and its offshoots have been far too incestuous with governments for too many centuries.)
The Crusades would not have happened.
The Inquisition would not have happened.
Galileo would not have been condemned and imprisoned.
The genocides of the New World would have been lessened considerably (although I doubt eliminated altogether, since there was so much racism directed against the "savages" found by Columbus and the Spanish missionaries).
At the very least, if so-called Christians had stuck to what they do best--helping the poor and preaching the Gospel (note: this does not include forced conversion)--we would have a helluva lot more respect from non-believers in today's world, precisely because we had not tried to force our beliefs on everybody else.
This is why I do not vote. This is also why I look at people like Cardinal Mahoney with a great deal of skepticism, because I certainly don't want him watching out for my soul.
February 4, 2007
Politics and Religion, Part 1
This is a great post from Preemptive Karma. I'm linking to it because I think this is something all Christians in the public arena should think about.
However, I would go even further than Becky. I believe people who call themselves Christian should not be involved in politics at all. For myself, I have never voted, and while I definitely have opinions (obviously, or I wouldn't be here!) I don't think the existence of an opinion makes anyone special. Hey, we all got 'em, just like anuses. Unfortunately, the peculiar penchant of Christians (and other religions for that matter, but in this country we're mostly talking about Christianity) to assume their way of thinking is the One True Faith makes mixing religion and politics very problematic--and, frankly, dangerous.
Please understand, I'm not slamming anybody for believing. If we don't think our beliefs are the Real Deal, why bother? But there's a big difference between talking about what you believe--and even then, I think it behooves you to be careful, lest you come across as a proselytizing jackass; respecting the listener and above all, knowing when to shut up are the requirements--and trying to legislate it.
This is where anyone calling themselves Christian needs to bow out, and fast. In my mind, there are three reasons for this.
a) it doesn't work.
b) it cheapens your faith.
c) Jesus Christ--you know, that fellow you claim to follow?--did not tell his disciples to do this; in fact, he said exactly the opposite, and the life he lived proved his intent.
Let's take these reasons one by one. (I was going to do this all in one post, but I can already see it's going to veer into too long; didn't read territory. So I'll do (a) today, and give the other reasons their own entries.)
a) Legislating religious beliefs Does Not Work.
I'm not talking about basic ethics every society on earth has shown, no matter what gods they worship. Prohibitions against murder, rape, stealing, child abuse, and so forth are agreed on by everybody, even those who believe in no gods at all. Where we get into difficulties are the grey areas religion brings into the picture.
A classic example is abortion, which incorporates two of the basic ethics listed above: murder and child abuse. The questions abortion turn on are 1) whether or not the embryo is a person; and 2) if so, does this person (quasi-person, in my mind) outweigh the complete person that is the mother.
For most Christians, the matter is settled. The Bible states life is precious to God, which is actually a reasonable position for the Creator of the universe to take, seeing as zie made everything. However, what militant pro-life Christians forget (and this is so basic, I feel silly having to point it out) is that not everybody believes in the Bible or God. If you do, fine. If you don't, someone telling you that you can't have an abortion because of the way God feels about it, when you don't even accept that God exists, is absurd.
(I know there are some atheist groups who are also against abortion, and some religious opposers try to tone down the rhetoric by saying, "Human life is precious." Which it is. But if you don't believe the embryo's life is precious and/or important, then I don't think anyone has the right to force you to behave otherwise.)
Therefore, Christianity's rules should apply only to those who want to accept them, and no one else. Remember--as I wrote before--God wants willing worshipers. In the end, we are responsible only for ourselves. This would rule out someone's trying to force a tenet of Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam) on society at large.
I've heard some trying to sidestep this point by claiming that *insert country here* is a Christian nation, founded by Christian men, said country is favored by God, and because it is, we have a duty to follow God's rules. This is also absurd. Without getting into too much theology here (that's going to be later) Christ did not tell his disciples to go forth and establish countries. What he did say was this.
"Therefore, go and make disciples in all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19)
So people in every nation are acceptable to God. Zie is not dealing with countries, but individuals. There is no "Christian" nation, and anyone trying to legislate this country--or any other--into one is contradicting what Christ intended.
This isn't to say that Christians can't accomplish a great deal of good out of the political sphere. Obviously they can and do, and I think we would garner a helluva lot more respect if we concentrated on helping people rather than attempting to force our beliefs on others. Each side might even learn to respect and tolerate the other, which is certainly not happening now. We can have good ethics and standards in this country without imposing Christianity upon it.
Of course, this might lead to (gasp!) a secular humanist government. If it does, so what? It's not going to change what I believe, or how I live my life. But if I don't want anyone who doesn't believe as I do forcing their non-belief on me, then I am duty-bound to respect their desire not to impose my standards on them. Any student of history, and human nature, knows that it doesn't work--the basic human desire to think for oneself will always reject it. It seems to me, then, that Christians should take the hint and stay the hell out of the political kitchen.
(Parts II and III to follow.)
However, I would go even further than Becky. I believe people who call themselves Christian should not be involved in politics at all. For myself, I have never voted, and while I definitely have opinions (obviously, or I wouldn't be here!) I don't think the existence of an opinion makes anyone special. Hey, we all got 'em, just like anuses. Unfortunately, the peculiar penchant of Christians (and other religions for that matter, but in this country we're mostly talking about Christianity) to assume their way of thinking is the One True Faith makes mixing religion and politics very problematic--and, frankly, dangerous.
Please understand, I'm not slamming anybody for believing. If we don't think our beliefs are the Real Deal, why bother? But there's a big difference between talking about what you believe--and even then, I think it behooves you to be careful, lest you come across as a proselytizing jackass; respecting the listener and above all, knowing when to shut up are the requirements--and trying to legislate it.
This is where anyone calling themselves Christian needs to bow out, and fast. In my mind, there are three reasons for this.
a) it doesn't work.
b) it cheapens your faith.
c) Jesus Christ--you know, that fellow you claim to follow?--did not tell his disciples to do this; in fact, he said exactly the opposite, and the life he lived proved his intent.
Let's take these reasons one by one. (I was going to do this all in one post, but I can already see it's going to veer into too long; didn't read territory. So I'll do (a) today, and give the other reasons their own entries.)
a) Legislating religious beliefs Does Not Work.
I'm not talking about basic ethics every society on earth has shown, no matter what gods they worship. Prohibitions against murder, rape, stealing, child abuse, and so forth are agreed on by everybody, even those who believe in no gods at all. Where we get into difficulties are the grey areas religion brings into the picture.
A classic example is abortion, which incorporates two of the basic ethics listed above: murder and child abuse. The questions abortion turn on are 1) whether or not the embryo is a person; and 2) if so, does this person (quasi-person, in my mind) outweigh the complete person that is the mother.
For most Christians, the matter is settled. The Bible states life is precious to God, which is actually a reasonable position for the Creator of the universe to take, seeing as zie made everything. However, what militant pro-life Christians forget (and this is so basic, I feel silly having to point it out) is that not everybody believes in the Bible or God. If you do, fine. If you don't, someone telling you that you can't have an abortion because of the way God feels about it, when you don't even accept that God exists, is absurd.
(I know there are some atheist groups who are also against abortion, and some religious opposers try to tone down the rhetoric by saying, "Human life is precious." Which it is. But if you don't believe the embryo's life is precious and/or important, then I don't think anyone has the right to force you to behave otherwise.)
Therefore, Christianity's rules should apply only to those who want to accept them, and no one else. Remember--as I wrote before--God wants willing worshipers. In the end, we are responsible only for ourselves. This would rule out someone's trying to force a tenet of Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam) on society at large.
I've heard some trying to sidestep this point by claiming that *insert country here* is a Christian nation, founded by Christian men, said country is favored by God, and because it is, we have a duty to follow God's rules. This is also absurd. Without getting into too much theology here (that's going to be later) Christ did not tell his disciples to go forth and establish countries. What he did say was this.
"Therefore, go and make disciples in all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19)
So people in every nation are acceptable to God. Zie is not dealing with countries, but individuals. There is no "Christian" nation, and anyone trying to legislate this country--or any other--into one is contradicting what Christ intended.
This isn't to say that Christians can't accomplish a great deal of good out of the political sphere. Obviously they can and do, and I think we would garner a helluva lot more respect if we concentrated on helping people rather than attempting to force our beliefs on others. Each side might even learn to respect and tolerate the other, which is certainly not happening now. We can have good ethics and standards in this country without imposing Christianity upon it.
Of course, this might lead to (gasp!) a secular humanist government. If it does, so what? It's not going to change what I believe, or how I live my life. But if I don't want anyone who doesn't believe as I do forcing their non-belief on me, then I am duty-bound to respect their desire not to impose my standards on them. Any student of history, and human nature, knows that it doesn't work--the basic human desire to think for oneself will always reject it. It seems to me, then, that Christians should take the hint and stay the hell out of the political kitchen.
(Parts II and III to follow.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)