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

[avevale_intelligencer]

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.

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Actually I think you're doing pretty well.

The only objection I would have is a practical one rather than one against the principle of the thing, and that is that there is kind of a blurry line between encouraging members of one's religion to vote because you think they will mostly vote "one's way,"and pressuring members of one's religion to believe that the religion requires they vote "one's way".

Supposing for a moment that "one's way" meant, for instance, removing the right of gays to marry, the first looks unfortunate, but within the spirit of such separation, the second looks (to me) to be against the spirit of such separation, and I'm not sure how to equip the law to distinguish between them.

That said, I admire the principle.

Also this sounds like it may be referring to an earlier post I haven't seen yet, so I may be responding in haste without a full understanding of what you have in mind. I will keep reading down the friends page.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Actually it arose from my last response to you, where I said I couldn't think of a solution to the problem of religion in America being out of control. This popped up about five seconds after I hit "post." :)

I really, honestly, am on your side.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

If we could bring this about, it would be a solution. It would be pretty much everything I could want along those lines, actually.

I accept that we are on the same side, and withdraw my previous comments and implications to the contrary.

[gingicat]

At the moment, all I have to say in comment is that at core, I agree with you, and I look forward to seeing what discussions you get out of this. :)

[howeird]

You have it kind of askew. The first phrase of the First Amendment was written to prevent the government from adopting an official religion. It does not prohibit the government from messing with the church, it protects the individual's right to practice whatever religion, however he wants to - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

IMHO, this separation ought to prohibit the government from having anything to do with marriage. There should be no licensing, no special privileges for married people, and no penalties for them either. The Federal government does not license marriages, but it does recognize them in the income tax laws.

Prop 8 only affects California. Several other states have the same law in place, and it's not much of an issue there because mob rule always wins when there is a large enough mob.

The place for faith is in the individual heart, and the sole justifiable purpose of religious organizations 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.
Absolutely. And in America, there are no laws from any religious order which the government imposes on the general public. If the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Dalai Lama or the mullah of the week makes a pronouncement that all person must do so-and-so, it carries no weight outside that religion's congregations. Only secular law applies.

However, it should be noted that many secular laws are based on religious teachings, especially the Old Testament which has 600+ laws to choose from. We can thank certain Christian sects for bringing monogamy to America and making it the law. Judaism has no limit on the number of wives a man can have, Islam caps it at 5, and so on.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I think my phrasing was imprecise rather than anything else, and the phrasing of the Amendment is open to interpretation.

And, not getting back into the marriage rhubarb if I can possibly avoid it, but it depends whether you regard marriage as a purely religious or as a purely civil matter. I've seen both opinions expressed, and given mine, which is that something that we call "marriage" is older than both religion and civil law, and ideally neither should have the power to dictate what it is or what it isn't...but on the other hand, part of what we call "marriage" is the witnessing of some sort of commitment by some sort of community, and both churches and governments come in kind of handy for facilitating that.

And in America, there are no laws from any religious order which the government imposes on the general public.

That's a somewhat narrow reading of what I said. I am sure Cat or Lil could give you numerous examples of religious orders and organisations getting, or trying to get, their prejudices enshrined in law at one level or another. That is what needs to be stopped. I admit I'm hazy on the details of how, but that it is happening seems to be beyond doubt.

As for your final point, I'll leave that to someone else to address...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I am sure Cat or Lil could give you numerous examples of religious orders and organisations getting, or trying to get, their prejudices enshrined in law at one level or another

Yes indeed. Proposition 8 pops immediately to mind.

[howeird]

Well, here in California, there really wasn't any religious note in the Prop 8 campaign. It was all about homophobia. While some people do get their homophobia from the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, Catholics accounted for far less than the majority who voted yes on the measure.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I think everyone gets their homophobia from the same place, somewhere inside themselves. Leviticus 18:22 is just a peg to hang it on.

Interesting statistic, though.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Certainly many secular laws are the same as laws that some religions also lay down.

However, I don't really understand what you're suggesting that means.

If you mean "religions have affected secular law in the past," yeah, but so what?

If you mean "religions have sometimes promoted laws that are good for secular reasons," again, yeah, but so what?

If you mean "religions are a source of laws that are good for secular reasons, so we should keep getting our secular laws from religion" they're also a source of laws that are bad for secular reasons, and we have other sources of good laws; we can afford to (and should) discard this one which gives such mixed results.

If you mean "men should be allowed to have many wives but women shouldn't be allowed to have many husbands," hell no!

I'm just not sure where you're going with this, but having covered some obvious possiblities, I'll pause for now.

[howeird]

I'm just not sure where you're going with this
I wasn't really going anywhere, just hanging some things out there to ponder.

Where I was coming from, though, is on smallship1's side of the pond, there was a time when the Church made the laws, and enforced them. The French and Spanish inquisitions, for instance. The whole reason there is a Church of England is a certain king got his shorts in a bind when Rome claimed legal power over him and his personal life. Talking with my cousins in England, there still seems to be a concept that when the Church speaks, the government listens. Part of the First Amendment's reason for being is the folks who led the revolution were in the colonies to get away from that.

What I meant about marriages is anyone who wants to marry anyone else should have that right, unrestricted by puritanical laws. "Anyone" is conveniently both singular and plural. :-)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

When the church speaks, the government listens...and then does exactly what it wants. I think the church has a lot less influence over here than it has there.

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

In an American context, the attitudes of the architects of our government were very clear. Both Adams and Jefferson (the two most important, imo) made very clear their low opinion of organized religion. Fairy tales have no place informing the government.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

If I remember right they were also working in a time when major religious wars were still pretty fresh in the memory, and may have wanted to avoid involving the fledgling country in any such thing.

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

John Adams had seen the problem of religious bigotry and extremism first-hand. His family was torn apart by it. His Uncle Ebenezer and his father (a deacon in their church) were divided over a Unitarian minister, Lemuel Briant, who dared to question the tenets of Christianity. Adams' father was one of Briant's few supporters. Adams saw first hand what religion can do to a community. That very much influenced his attitudes toward religion and government.

And yes, Washington and Adams made it very clear in the Treaty of Tripoli that the USA was "in no way based upon the Christian religion". They also declared their support for Muslims.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Aaaaand we're back to the beginning again...

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

I was responding to your blog entry alone. I rarely have time to read the whole thread. Thus we were "back at the beginning".

[armb.livejournal.com]

> sole justifiable purpose of religious organisations is to allow people a place to express that faith in worship

I'm not convinced by that, possibly because I'm not reading it the way you meant it. Would you count Christian Aid as a religious organisation? (As far as I can tell Christian Aid will happily take money from non-Christians, and will help non-Christians, so maybe it isn't.) Should religions that teach that charity is good be forced to do it through secular organisations with no religious affiliation? What about organisations checking compliance with kosher or halal rules?

That everybody should be equally subject to secular law, I absolutely agree with. But I can't see it being practical to stop people with a shared faith campaigning together for secular laws that agree with their viewpoint. How could you allow people to campaign against slavery because it was inhumane, but not because it was against God's will, if some of them consider that being inhumane is wrong because it is against God's will?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I refer the honourable member to my distinguished colleagues, who will doubtless be able to answer that one better than I.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, I contribute to Christian Aid for the reasons you mention, even though I am an extremely militant Atheist.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Of course, slavery is given Biblical approval. The Quakers were some of the first to campaign against it. This was because they did not believe in absolute Biblical authority, or the authority of priests (because they have none.)

[armb.livejournal.com]

I personally would be opposed to any suggested law whose backers can't come up with a better argument than "the Bible supports it", and would not give any weight to it in any case. But I don't think banning people from listing that, or other religious reasons, among their arguments for a secular law will be workable, or right.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

They can list it...but it should not be taken into consideration, and if there are no other reasons the law should fall. Laws should be made for secular reasons. As m'colleagues would doubtless point out, our concepts of ethical and/or moral behaviour these days are no longer exclusively derived from or dependent on religion, and therefore it should not be necessary to involve religion in the making of good laws. I obviously wouldn't advocate preventing anyone from expressing their opinion, but holy scriptures, of any sort, are far too open to (mis)interpretation these days to be the foundation of a legal system.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

It would not be workable, but I suggest it might be right.