Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tw
The will of the people is to not have religious values in government.
|
When a religion-and-politics thread heats up, I need to jump in, fears of being labeled a nitpicker be damned. And if ever there was a sure sign I've had too much rum... But I digress.
I think "values" may be the wrong word to use here, as I have several values which I believe should be promoted by governmental policy that I also grew up as being taught were desirable from a religious standpoint. For example, the value that the ill - all of them - be healed, and to hell with their socio-financial status in life.
I think that when the framers espoused that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..., that principle was put forth after witnessing the effects of the fusion of religious
dogma and the state that were the hallmark of European political society from the feudal period to (through?) the Age of Enlightenment/Reason. It shouldn't be a problem for a government to accept a value of a particular religion and incorporate it into policy. A religious value is an idea, and should not be seen as less - or more - valid in the marketplace of ideas than an idea with a purely secular point of origin simply because the former value came from a liturgical text. If the idea has merit among the populace (thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, all men are equal before God regardless of color, the Mets are great), then it ought stand up against conflicting ideas with less broad-based merit (God hates gays, contraception is murder, the Yankees are great).
When a state begins to attach physical punishment to the violation of religious
dogma - when your corporeal person and/or property can be injured, seized, or destroyed by failing to conform to rules and regulations inherently designed to govern the spiritual realm - then that state is theocratic. THAT flies in the face of "the will of the people".