I was listening to some talk radio on my way into work this morning. The topic at the time was the whole "church vs. state" debacle. And yes...I use the word "debacle" intentionally. I don't know if I've ever done an entry on this topic, but either way, I'm motivated this morning.I will NEVER understand the polerization on the topic. I personally am an avid subscriber to the seperation of the two and really don't support the abolition of either. Is this simply a further sign of my non-commital attitude? Perhaps. But again, perhaps not. :)
By its definition, the "state" is representative of the current governing powers in this country and its representation of the wishes of the populous. In this case, it's the 200+ year-old fledgling representative democracy. "Church" is representative of no one single religious or spiritual institution, but all of them as a whole.
I've always believed that an all-encompassing authoritative law should not be appointed over a population UNLESS either it is the will of the overwhelming majority or it can be PROVEN (or, at least, extremely cogent) to be be in the best interest of the greater good. As respective examples, 1) the overwhelming majority believes that women should have the right to vote and 2) it is probably in the best interest of the people to have free speech. (These are simply examples and have no bearing on this topic at hand.)
One of the biggest arguments for the inclusion of church power in the legislative/executive/judicial process is that the founding fathers explicitly mention God in the US Constitution and that they were clearly acting under the influence of their faith. No harm...no foul. Who did we have living in this country at the time? White Christian englishmen. (Of course, the opinions of the slave population and the yet-to-be-gentrified Native Americans were never taken into consideration. I also admit that my religious history is a tad weak in this case.) It is important to realize that that attitude was representative of the vast majority of the population at that time. In 200+ years, that has changed dramatically. We aren't simply a nation of whilte Christian englishmen anymore. We're a nation of white americans, latin americans, african americans, asian americans, arab americans, etc. In fact, other countries consider it a weakness that we arguably have no national heritage given the nature of our heterogeneity. The important thing to remember is that they are ALL Americans...regardless of heritage. However, in this country, we have a little thing called freedom of religion. I challenge someone to find a written stipulation in the founding documents that requires the religious assimilation of any migrants to this country (and I'm going to feel like a total tool if someone does). The fact of the matter is that times have changed. The white Christian englishman attitudes of the 18th century are no longer representative of the populous. So, my question to the church-first folks out there...How do you justify legislation that is clearly influenced by certain religous dogmas? But then...you may come to me and say "But the Constitution says so...so nyah!". But, remember this line from the Declaration of Independence...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Funny how that sentence never applied to the slave population (who were regarded as property) nor the native population (who were simply regarded as inconvenient). America has a long history of laws that are considered to be acts of greatness and clarity but yet are completely subject to the views of the time. This is not a failure of the founding fathers, the current government, nor the people. It's simply a failure to recognize that things are fluid and variable. To summerize, this has been my reasoning behind my rejection of the constitution-says-so argument. So...."nyah!" back to all of you! :)
So...back to the topic at hand. The majority of Christians out there don't have a problem with having the commandments in the courtroom, prayer in the school, or "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. "It's in the Constitution!" "It's tradition!" "If you don't like it, you don't have to even SAY the pledge of allegiance!"
What could it hurt to have some legislation that mandates Christian ideals and is enforced across all the people of the country? 1) We have historically disregarded things in the Constitution and the Declaration to suit our needs. 2) Traditional values clearly change. And, last but not least...3) The pledge didn't add the God part until ~60 years ago and I CERTAINLY don't know about you, but I don't like having to pledge my allegiance to a God that I don't even believe in to be able to pledge it to my country. I would argue that it would be more fair to remove God from the pledge and let people add it themselves when reciting than it would be to have it in the pledge and have people simply ignore that part.
And finally, there's my favorite argument....the complete and total lack of empathy in this country. Let's say, for example, that the Arab American population boomed in this country to the point where they actually became the majority. How would most people out there like Islamic values and teachings legislated across the land? (I also want to add that I have NOTHING against such values and teachings....I simply use it as example). For some reason, most people have an inability to imagine themselves on the other side of the fence.
I think that religion/spirituality has its place. I may not be religious, but I do consider myself to be spiritual. I also believe that issues of faith and dogma belong in the home and in the place of worship.....not in the courts and schools. Absolutely NOTHING is lost by having completely-secular national legislation and completely personal dogma. It's win-win for everyone! So what if the public school isn't instilling your kids with Christian values?! That's YOUR job!! :)
Anyway...I expect to get flamed or disputed on my historical accuracy for this post. Oh well. Bring it. :)
Love ya'll! ;)
