Such a pithy title deserves a dissertation, but alas, one is not forthcoming today. Or, if it does, then Project 5, which is due tomorrow, will be in rough shape.
Anyway, looking at my entries, I've noticed that I've been a bit hard on the old-tyme religion as of late, and I feel like it is high time I announced some premises/positions for future exploration in detail... later. My co-collaborators are welcome to jump in wherever they feel compelled to agree or disagree.
1. Inquiries that begin with the conclusion are doomed. Examples: Undertaking a scientific study of the world after first concluding that whatever you will find must conform to a literal interpretation of some holy text (not just looking at you Christians).
2. Neither evolution nor the big bang theory make any claims regarding the existence of supernatural deities or the creation of the universe. Those questions are beyond the scope of science. You can be a scientist who believes these things and devoutly follow any number of mainstream religions.
3. This is not a Christian nation. It is a nation of laws in which people are free to hold the beliefs that they choose without fear of coercion or harassment. Religious people set it up this way because they were sick of being coerced and harassed.
4. Faith is GREAT, for individuals. If you wish to take a position based on faith, it is your right. However, the moment you attempt to make decisions about other people's rights and property, you had better have evidence to convince them that what you propose is right. Example: Because of his religious beliefs, the owner of Chik'fil'a (sp?) closes all of his restaurants on Sundays. Good for him! They belong to him, he can do what he wants with them. However, if he were to lobby the government to force all restaurants to close on Sundays, he had better be able to make an objective case for the policy change that even folks who don't share his faith could find reasonable. "God says so," ceases to cut it.
5. Though people may have souls, the nation certainly does not. Using the state to advance a religious agenda at home or abroad saves no one. You can't get all of America into heaven by having the government force righteousness upon everyone, and the ones doing the forcing probably won't make it either. Instead, people need to focus on themselves and their families to make sure they are righteous in the eyes of their God.
6. The government is a tool we use to get along with one another, and secularism is a great approach for deciding just how it should work. We're a nation of a lot of people who believe a lot of different things. Holding debates on public policy within the domain of material facts which all parties can ascertain and share with others is the best way to come to conclusions that satisfy the most people's needs. When policy debate bears the burden of religious dogma, compromise, the original goal, becomes heresy enforced by damnation, and consequently, unpalatable to all sides concerned. What gets done?
7. Secular doesn't mean Hollywood. Secular doesn't mean relativism, either. Just because you hear these things lumped together in straw-man arguments (as I heard in this Sunday's homily), it doesn't mean they are all the same thing. It is possible to come to conclusions about right and wrong without relying on any particular group's religious views (see Philosophy in general). The alternative isn't resorting to hedonism.
That's good for now. I could go further, but I have a J.D. to get.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Regarding Item #3:
How do you differentiate a formally Christian Nation that doesn't force conversion from a formally secular nation with laws steeped in Christian values? Is it fair to say that the line drawn in the latter with regards to Christianity's influence in its laws is somewhat arbitrary?
Megas, not sure completely know what you're asking but I'll take a shot anyway.
I think the distinction you are looking for arises from issue #4 which is a requirement for practical/objective/secular justification when you are making policy that affects those outside your particular faith. A Christian nation that doesn't force conversion may look directly to the authority of the New Testament when deliberating their laws. While a formally secular nation might not use the Bible as authority directly, though many of the teachings might be objectively/practically justifiable in their own right.
Am I close to giving an answer here?
You're getting at what I'm getting at... but something's still nagging at me and I'm having a hard time articulating it.
I'm just not sure the line drawn between "Christian nation that doesn't force conversion" and 'secular nation that might pass laws coinciding with Biblical values' constitutes a real and practical distinction for a largely Christian democracy, except in name.
Just trying this on for size... but why shouldn't America - with a history inseparable from Christianity and a mostly Christian population - just say it's Christian. In a way, it is. Wouldn't it be better to continue passing laws the way we do, but just adopt the religion that is so intimately a part of our history and identity? I'm sure there is many a lawmaker out there who conforms to your look-directly-at-the-New-Testament model, anyway.
This doesn't mean everyone in the country has to be Christian... not by far. There are plenty of historical examples of nations formally espousing a particular religion but not caring what its citizens actually believed. In these cases, the religion often served a social-unity function.
This whole posting, by the way, is me hoping someone will examine it from a technical legal point of view, which I am not equipped to do. I'm very interested in this.
Because your question is so foundational, it is hard to give a "technical legal" answer. Our nation, established under the Constitution, is clearly Case 2: a formally secular nation steeped in Christian values. God doesn't turn up in the constitution at all, but the first sentence of the first amendment is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
That said, the sort of stuff that an individual member of Congress takes into consideration when he decides how to cast a vote is totally off limits to judicial scrutiny. This would fall into the broad category of subjects labeled "political questions" by the Court.
However, if the body of Congress were to pass a law with a stated intent or demonstrable effect of establishing a religion, the courts will step in.
So why is it this way if nearly everybody is Christian anyway? Not all Christians are the same. The folks who came here to escape religious persecution were being persecuted by other Christians. James Dobson and Pat Robertson see things a lot differently than Billy Graham did. If someone would like this to be a "Christian Nation" akin to Case 1 of your question, what kind of Christian should the nation be?
Post a Comment