Actually, maybe I *can* think of a way...
Feb. 20th, 2009 10:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerIt'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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-21 06:57 pm (UTC)I wasn't really going anywhere, just hanging some things out there to ponder.
Where I was coming from, though, is on
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. :-)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-21 07:21 pm (UTC)