Sunday, October 11, 2009
Sunday Reflection: Freedom and Faith
Some thoughts on church and state:
1) The Constitution does not erect a wall between church and state. Rather, it requires freedom of religion and prohibits the establishment of a state religion. Beyond that, we are left to determine the relationship between church and state as a matter of policy.
2) In determining that matter of policy, I think a total separation between church and state is best not only for the interests of freedom, but for both the church and the state.
3) Total separation is best for freedom because it best embodies the message that we truly are free to choose our faith. With total separation, there is no chance that our choice will cause us to somehow be disfavored by the government.
4) Total separation is best for the church, and especially the Christian church, because government does not do a good job running things like a church, or even influencing it. Look at it this way: There are several thousand religious groups in the US, and one federal government. That means that if the two are integrated in any way, the government will require some kind of standardization, which will dilute or twist the views of any one group. Even the singular "In God We Trust" seems fine until we view it from the perspective of the polytheistic Hindu faith. How would I feel in a Hindu state seeing "In Gods We Trust" stamped on everything?
5) Total separation is best for the state because it is not dragged into arbitrating disputes between thousands of groups, or becoming an instrument of oppression for one group or another. There is not a religious majority in the United States, though most people are Christian, because Christians are divided into thousands of sects with radically different ideas and beliefs. Where do we look to find the viewpoint of this "Christian Majority"-- the Pope? The Mormon Elders? The SBC? The Quaker Yearly Meeting?
Freedom from government is good, especially in an area like religion, but the cost of that freedom is that the government will not promote our own particular view. We should embrace that freedom, with its cost, under the discretion allowed us by the Constitution.
Comments:
<< Home
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? THE US IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT OR ARE HINDU OR WHATEVER, THERE ARE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE THAT THERE, AND YOUR FREEDOM IS TO GO LIVE IN THAT COUNTRY.
# posted by 
: 10:22 AM
: 10:22 AM 
I am personally so grateful for religious freedom. The freedom to believe in whatever we want, even if that means believing that all religions are nothing more than the opiate of the masses, is the most fundamental freedom there is. And thankfully, my tax dollars don't go to a State religion, like they do in Germany and other European nations.
I do have a few questions of clarification, though:
Should religious organizations be kept out of political discourse?
Should policy makers be required to set aside their religious beliefs when establishing laws?
I do have a few questions of clarification, though:
Should religious organizations be kept out of political discourse?
Should policy makers be required to set aside their religious beliefs when establishing laws?
I'd actually go to church if L.T. Bates was the pastor.
"*ACHEM* Please turn to Psalms."
"*ACHEM* Please turn to Psalms."
# posted by : 2:32 PM
: 2:32 PM
Craig, what's the state religion of Germany? The German constitution actually contains broader religious protections than the United States Constitution does.
Other than that, religion can (and should) influence the political views of its adherents. It should motivate them to both public and private action. But a religious value should never be the basis of a secular regulation law. All secular morals regulations should be toward maximizing freedom. That's why a law against, say, marriage equality is bad, but a law against human sacrifice is good.
Other than that, religion can (and should) influence the political views of its adherents. It should motivate them to both public and private action. But a religious value should never be the basis of a secular regulation law. All secular morals regulations should be toward maximizing freedom. That's why a law against, say, marriage equality is bad, but a law against human sacrifice is good.
Craig--
Religious groups certainly have a guarantee of free speech! And I think that politics would be much better if those running for office were open and honest about how their political beliefs affect their positions. Those beliefs affect officeholders actions whether we say it should or not, so it is best if those beliefs are known.
Religious groups certainly have a guarantee of free speech! And I think that politics would be much better if those running for office were open and honest about how their political beliefs affect their positions. Those beliefs affect officeholders actions whether we say it should or not, so it is best if those beliefs are known.
Lane, tax money in Germany goes to the Lutheran Church, or at least it used to. It's been a while since I've studied German policy.
Prof. Osler, thanks for the clarification.
Prof. Osler, thanks for the clarification.
I just had to comment because this picture made me so happy. Good post too. :-)
# posted by : 10:19 PM
: 10:19 PM
@Craig:
Ah, you meant the Kirchenteuer. It's not a tax like we have here: it's more like a voluntary contribution to a religious community from the members of that community assessed and collected by the Staat (federal subdivision). For instance, if Germany has a nationally-recognized branch of the LDS church, your tithes to your church would be assessed and collected by the state rather than through your own personal collection plate donations.
Same basic system as we have, though different in execution.
Goes back to the Gothic/Germanic tribal customs. In most societies that follow the Germanic/Celtic model, the tribe as a whole supported the religious orders within the community through some form of a tax. This custom was co-opted by the early Church and it's just sort of stuck with Western culture.
Ah, you meant the Kirchenteuer. It's not a tax like we have here: it's more like a voluntary contribution to a religious community from the members of that community assessed and collected by the Staat (federal subdivision). For instance, if Germany has a nationally-recognized branch of the LDS church, your tithes to your church would be assessed and collected by the state rather than through your own personal collection plate donations.
Same basic system as we have, though different in execution.
Goes back to the Gothic/Germanic tribal customs. In most societies that follow the Germanic/Celtic model, the tribe as a whole supported the religious orders within the community through some form of a tax. This custom was co-opted by the early Church and it's just sort of stuck with Western culture.
Nope-- your call. I find that your writing about faith is almost always strong and compelling. Just remember that there is a general (but usually respectful) audience here!
In Germany, you check on your tax return where you would like your money to go. Currently, you can check : Roman Catholic or Evangelical. The Evangelical State Church in Germany, not to be confused with how we understand that term in the US, is a federation of autonomous Protestant Churches. In some parts of Germany, the Protestant State Church is Lutheran, similar to the ELCA in the US. In some places, it is Reformed, similar to the Presbyterian Church USA, and in some places it is United (Lutheran/Reformed), similar to the United Church of Christ in the US.
Also, one can check NO on their tax returns, indicating that they do not want their taxes to go to any religious institution.
Post a Comment
Also, one can check NO on their tax returns, indicating that they do not want their taxes to go to any religious institution.
<< Home
