I don't get it... separation between church and state seems so simple.
Protection for the church from the state: if the church believes a member isn't adhering to their doctrine, they have the right to ban this person from their church, free from questions and certainly free from government prosecution.
Protection for the state from the church: religious beliefs and doctrines shouldn't affect lawmaking for the American public.
Why is the country that I so dearly love seeming to have such problems with this concept?
My Blog List
About Me
- A New Leaf
- Musician. Optimist. Myopic. Hitched. Teacher. Celiac. Wii Enthusiast. Arrested Development Fanatic. Performer. Ta-Da: Me Totally rad picture of me taken by the beautiful and talented Wendy Collins: www.wjcphoto.com
1 comment:
It's a catch 22. For many people Religion and the moral standpoint they base on it are central to how they make moral and civil decisions. The very idea that they need to set aside their religious beliefs when it comes to civil issues regarding government is unreasonable and goes against their religion, thus prohibiting them from practicing the type of religion they wish to, thus being a form of religious prosecution which is the entire thing this separation was intended to prevent. You either have a state where everyone is allowed to participate, from a religious perspective or otherwise, or you don't, and you're leaving out people who cannot separate the two.
But you also have to ask yourself how far you wish to take the definition of religion or "Church". I think if we're all honest with ourselves that everything is based on our beliefs, thus rendering our core beliefs more or less a religion. And so can any of us really say we set our beliefs aside to make decisions about our government? And if you can and expect others to, is that not religious discrimination?
I don't think the separation of church and state is very realistic, but I suppose it all depends on your point of view.
Post a Comment