|
The Separation of Church and State
There is an increasing endorsement of religion by our various governments. The most grievous example is the White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, however we see entanglement at all levels of government. Religious-based holiday decorations incite controversy every December.
Those advocating religious tenet as a basis for civil order attempt to monopolize the concept of goodness, as if anyone not of their religious fold are incapable of conducting themselves in a good, just, and honorable way. But it is not enough to impose the "goodness," they also attempt to impose the "holiness." However, a society will not flourish if a select group of people is chosen to have their lifestyle imposed by law on others. Eventually the "others" will rise against the oppression. This is exactly what the strife in the Middle East should be teaching us today. Only by REMOVING all religious preference and entanglements can our governments represent ALL the people.
Some arguments propose that our governments try to represent all religious beliefs. This surely seems impossible. There are just too many religions, and with too many conflicting perspectives. Further, it is not the ROLE of government to announce or support the religion of its citizens. That announcement of faith already has appropriate outlets in church, at home, or any other PRIVATE venue. While it may not cause direct harm to ALLOW a collection of expressions in a public place, it is oppressive to use tax-collected revenue to support it. It will ensure that minority voices are squelched by majority voices; tax support of this removes minority expression by law, clearly not the intent of the First Amendment.
Mixing religion into government always leads to behavior restriction becoming law. Horrible things happen when the beliefs of one group are imposed on groups that don't share those same beliefs. Christianity is replete with atrocities throughout history: the Inquisition, Crusades, witch burning, etc. Thankfully it has evolved into a much less violent form of oppression today, but not all religions can claim this.
According to an article in The Guardian, in December, 2006 a poll was taken in Great Britain that shows 82% of Brits feel that religion causes more harm than good. This comes from people who are taxed in support of the Church of England.
According to an article at MSNBC.COM, 20 people visiting Saudi Arabia were arrested by the Religious Police and sentenced to several months in prison and an unspecified number of lashes with a whip for dancing. Can you count the outrages? First, I cannot fathom how dancing could cause harm to others. If you don't like to dance, fine, don't dance, but there is no reason to restrict others from doing it. Second, this was enforced by the Religious Police. When you are in Michigan, you are under the jurisdiction of Michigan State Police. If you travel to Ohio, you leave Michigan's jurisdiction. Doesn't it stand to reason that religious police only have jurisdiction over those who are part of the same religion? These people were not. Third, the sentence is ridiculous. Whipping, of course, does not exist in America, but even if we stretch our imaginations to include this sort of punishment, physical punishment would only be appropriate for physical crimes, like assault or rape.
Quotes "Because religious belief, or non-belief, is
such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion
affects every individual. State churches that use government power
to support themselves and force their views on persons of other
faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of
the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and
leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of
separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely
essential in a free society." "And I have no doubt that every new example
will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing {sic, showing}
that religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the
less they are mixed together." "Today, the religion clauses of the First
Amendment do not need to be fixed; they need to be followed." |
The opinions expressed
here are mine alone. Care to comment? Click
HERE |