| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Dec 2005 07:01:50 AM |
| Object: |
The church vs. state question |
The church vs. state question
http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/paper660/news/2005/12/02/Viewpoint/The-Church.Vs.State.Question-1118740.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com
[excerpts]
Observer Online - IN,USA
The Founding Fathers did not invent religious tolerance - it had already
formed out of the circumstances that created the original colonies -
however their unique perspective gave them the presence of mind to enshrine
it in the Constitution, in the form of the separation of church and state,
and so to protect it from less-gentle hands that might govern in the
future. They were not unreligious men, yet they understood that a certain
distance is required between politics and religion, for the protection of
both.
We still dwell in the nation of their legacy, and the consequences of
embracing pluralism as a public virtue are widespread. There are few
societies, if any, that are simultaneously as secular and as religious as
the United States, or where questions of the relationship between church
and state are taken up more fiercely by more people. This is a sign of the
nation's health.
However, for people of faith-especially those who practice religions like
Christianity and Islam, which do not embrace the equality of other beliefs
- the nature of the country raises a difficult question. What does it mean
to be a religious person in such a tolerant and pluralistic society and how
can one embrace all of these values while compromising none?
[snip]
However, Notre Dame is a very insulated microcosm that is only beginning to
reflect a wider trend sweeping Christian churches and the nation. The
coupling between religion and politics has grown stronger in the past
decade, to the ultimate detriment of each. This union has already produced
some very strange bedfellows, like the Republican Party's unstable mixture
of traditional small-government conservatives and religious theocons who
will spend any amount of money in pursuit of their social agendas.
This close relationship is dangerous, because it tempts religious leaders
to use their authority to directly impact government in dubious ways, for
example declaring that voting for a particular candidate is immoral, or
ostracizing political leaders when their public views do not match those of
the religion. It takes more than the restraint of the State to make the
American system work; it also requires a degree restraint on the part of
religions not to undermine it. Under this pressure the very idea of
separation of church and state and the tolerance and pluralism that are
built on it begin to crumble.
[snip]
.... however their [founders] unique perspective gave them the presence of
mind to enshrine it in the Constitution, in the form of the separation of
church and state, and so ...
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
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 U.S. 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)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The church vs. state question |
03 Dec 2005 07:17:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:01:50 -0500, wrote:
However, for people of faith-especially those who practice religions like
Christianity, which do not embrace the equality of other beliefs
- the nature of the country raises a difficult question.
Since when???????
The First Amendment reads, in its entirety:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
