Friday

If things had worked out, we would now be on our way to Coventry for my first con in a few years, and my first non-filk con in a lot longer, and I'd be looking forward to e.g. meeting Paul Cornell and asking him searching questions such as "the Reapers--WHY???" Instead, I'm here, taking a throat break from reading the entire Discworld oeuvre to Jan on semi-random shuffle (I left most of the Weatherwax books till last because I'm not entirely happy with my performance).

In other threads, the old argument is thundering on; I'm waiting for an answer on whether my interlocutor genuinely thinks I'm saying what I am because I just wish all these nasty people would stop harshing my buzz, or whatever the phrase is. If s/he does, then I think maybe we're done, because I'm obviously not communicating effectively at all. Mrs Curbinand, or rather her story, since the poor soul's dead, is lurking at the back of my mind and still refuses to come out and tell me what happens next, though I haven't given up on it yet and will relink to the previous episodes at some point soon in the hope of forcing the issue. I didn't get considered for the job I applied for a couple of weeks ago, despite my application being about as good as it could be and my extensive experience in the kind of work they wanted done.

But one must think of the good things, must one not? So, here are some:

1. I don't have to drive a couple of hundred miles today, in a car impatiently awaiting its MOT, and negotiate a large city's one way systems to find a hotel I don't know, with my wife sitting next to me in excessive pain.

2. We have enough food in the house to last till I get some more benefit on Tuesday, I think.

3. Offline Uru is working and other people are writing some very nice-looking Ages for it.

4. My copy of Red Roses And Dead Things arrived today, and it looks excellent. (Haven't listened to it yet.)

5. Um. Oh yes. When I went to see Adrian from the Richmond Fellowship on Wednesday, we did a mock interview, and apparently after a frozen moment at the beginning I did very well. Which given that interviews terrify me is possibly quite good news. Of course, I have to get as far as the interview first...

Actually, maybe I *can* think of a way...

It's just occurred to me...

Separation of church and state, as enshrined in the First Amendment, is designed to prevent the state from interfering with the church ("shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"). The converse, that the church should not be able to interfere with the state, is implied by the word "separation" but as far as I know not stated in the text. Obviously I ANAL (some would say extremely) but I wonder if it would be possible to make a case that "the state" should be interpreted to mean "any matter involving secular law" (in other words, employment, contracts, marriage, medical practice, education and so on) and that the price of state non-interference in religious matters should be a reciprocal non-interference in secular matters from religious establishments?

Obviously it's easier to say than to do. There would be huge resistance, and it would probably have to be done gradually with test cases to establish precedents, but I think the logic works. Clearly the current arrangement is hugely one-sided. The aim would eventually be that even faith-based organisations would have to comply in all respects relating to their actual operations with secular law. The Biblical reference would be "Render unto Caesar all things that are Caesar's." Initiatives that are clearly faith-based, such as the teaching of creationism or bloody prop 8, could be abolished that way, maybe. And no amount of money or influence would be enough to allow a faith-based organisation to effect any change to secular law. It would simply be illegal.

The place for faith is in the individual heart, and the sole justifiable purpose of religious organisations is to allow people a place to express that faith in worship. In every other respect, outside the home, secular law should apply across the board.

Let me down easy, will you? I'm trying here.