Tolerance: A virtue that should be valued more
Perspective
Dan Ventucci
Issue date: 10/5/09 Section: Opinions
So it seems that the 33-foot statue of the Virgin Mary a couple weeks ago ruffled a few feathers. That is not unexpected. Whenever there is a religious symbol in view of the public, those staunch defendants of the separation of church and state agitate to remove it. It seems that about the only place where such champions of freedom will accept religious displays is on top of the church's roof.
Here's the deal: there will never be a true separation of church and state. As long as politicians, judges, or anyone part of the government believes in a higher being, religion will exist within and have influence on the state.
Religion is a core belief: a set of morals to be followed in everyday actions. It holds sway over the decision making process. How is it that we know what laws to make? Who are we to know what is right and what is wrong? So what if I steal a laptop left lying around somewhere? Big deal. What makes that wrong? Because I am taking what is not mine? Because it hurts someone? Why shouldn't we hurt others? The answer is that there are codes we follow and these codes are descended from religious teachings. Every major religion has principles outlining what is right and what is wrong. From those principles laws are made. Whether or not this is the best way to decide what constitutes good and bad behavior is another discussion entirely. Nevertheless, religious teachings tell us stealing is wrong and therefore is outlawed by the government.
A politician's background influences the decision he makes. Teachers or farmers do not simply forsake what they have learned in those professions once they are a part of the government. They will attempt to pass legislation that calls for more money to the schools or greater subsidies for poorer farmers. Religion is as much a part of their background as their profession. One does not cease to be a Christian upon entering the Capitol Building. An Islamic or Protestant or Catholic representative of the people makes decisions influenced by the teachings of his religion because this is how he knows what is wrong.
Here's the deal: there will never be a true separation of church and state. As long as politicians, judges, or anyone part of the government believes in a higher being, religion will exist within and have influence on the state.
Religion is a core belief: a set of morals to be followed in everyday actions. It holds sway over the decision making process. How is it that we know what laws to make? Who are we to know what is right and what is wrong? So what if I steal a laptop left lying around somewhere? Big deal. What makes that wrong? Because I am taking what is not mine? Because it hurts someone? Why shouldn't we hurt others? The answer is that there are codes we follow and these codes are descended from religious teachings. Every major religion has principles outlining what is right and what is wrong. From those principles laws are made. Whether or not this is the best way to decide what constitutes good and bad behavior is another discussion entirely. Nevertheless, religious teachings tell us stealing is wrong and therefore is outlawed by the government.
A politician's background influences the decision he makes. Teachers or farmers do not simply forsake what they have learned in those professions once they are a part of the government. They will attempt to pass legislation that calls for more money to the schools or greater subsidies for poorer farmers. Religion is as much a part of their background as their profession. One does not cease to be a Christian upon entering the Capitol Building. An Islamic or Protestant or Catholic representative of the people makes decisions influenced by the teachings of his religion because this is how he knows what is wrong.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
History Matters
posted 10/05/09 @ 6:18 PM CST
Good missive! When the argument uses "separation of church and state" the person using that metaphor is usually turning it on its head. It came from a letter of Thomas Jefferson to describe ONE aspect of the First Amendment. (Continued…)
Post a Comment