ALEX CLARK: Building a religious community need not involve the government.
http://www.dailynebraskan.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/03/07/440d139ec8e67
Daily Nebraskan - Lincoln,NE,USA
by Alex Clark
Junior political science major
March 07, 2006
Separation of church and state is a much larger source of political
conflict in the U.S. than it needs to be.
The Founding Fathers did not foresee a government where any particular mode
of religiosity was to be enshrined in law or policy, but rather that the
government they established could act as a framework within which people of
many different religious beliefs could live according to their beliefs.
Some have misinterpreted present-day support for this religiously neutral
framework as anti-religiosity. Some go so far as to call it oppression.
It’s really cute when upper-middle-class, straight, white, Anglo-Saxon,
Protestant males claim to be oppressed in America. It really is.
It’s like these males have no sense of world history or perspective into
the experiences of people of other cultures living around them. It’s oh, so
endearing.
I consider myself to be a pretty religious person. And I am supportive of
outward displays of faith, of public religion. But I have a problem when
you enlist the support of the government. Public religion needs to be done
on private time and on private property.
Please, no crèches in the Unicameral.
I understand that misconceptions and the battle against imaginary
persecution aren’t the only reasons why people try to get government
involved in religion.
Some governmental entities – public schools and town halls – are centers of
community for many, and people have a desire for the institutions and
structures of their community to reflect their community values.
I understand and can even empathize. As a Jew, I’ve reflected before on how
nice it would be to live in Israel, where demographics and social
structures make it easier to do things like keep kosher or observe the
Sabbath.
It’s cozy; it’s comforting. But, if you use the government to get there,
it’s also wrong. Using the government to structure your community around
your religion is inappropriate because, while government is by definition
something violent, religion is something that must not be violent.
A law is not a law without teeth. Even when a law is passed about something
the government itself is going to do, that activity of the government still
requires resources and funding, and the government has few resources of its
own. It gets its money from citizens, and if citizens don’t want to pay
taxes, it’s taken by force.
And the initiation of physical force is a pretty unacceptable way to honor
G-d in most religions I know.
But look, you don’t need your school board and city council printing the
Shahada, the Shema or John 3:16 at the top of their newsletters for you to
be a part of a strong religious community.
You can be outwardly religious; you can talk about your faith with others;
you can be a devout part of a religious community – and you can do it all
without getting the government involved.
Build your own structures. Build voluntary communities. Dive into religious
communities already in place.
Ultimately, it will work better and you’ll be a lot happier if you devote
your time to building up your congregation’s Sunday school instead of
battling to move your congregation’s Sunday school into your nearest public
school science class. Even nonviolent holy wars are rarely much fun.
You can even create your own place-based communities, complete with
voluntary government and voluntary religious law, if you want.
The U.S. has a long history of “intentional Christian communities,” that
is, religious communities with religious rules and structures where people
live in close proximity but there is no reliance on the U.S. government for
the successful functioning of their community.
I’m talking not only about Amish, Mennonite and Hutterite communities, but
also of communities like Jesus People USA of Chicago or Life Mission
Fellowship of Hammonton, N.J. – large communities of religious Christians
who live together but who, unlike the radical Anabaptist sects, do not
isolate themselves from modern society or technology at all.
The most ambitious attempt at an intentional Christian community I’ve heard
of recently is the proposed plans of Domino’s Pizza founder Thomas Monaghan
for a community centered around a new Catholic university near Naples,
Fla., called Ave Maria.
Press coverage of plans for the community have been rather harsh, partially
because Thomas apparently misspoke about his plans for the community,
implying the community, which would also be a chartered city, would have
city laws that would be pretty blatantly unconstitutional.
After the first round of media coverage, however, Monaghan made it clear
the community would adopt much of what he talked about voluntarily and not
by law.
I hope he keeps his word and gives the American Civil Liberties Union no
reason to object. There really is no reason to have an American city run
strictly by the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
To do so is not only unconstitutional but also unnecessary. Why have a
religious conflict when you don’t need to?
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
