|
Post by littlepea on Apr 1, 2006 6:41:40 GMT -5
what is the whole thinking behind the maxim, "separation of church and state"?
diana, in the prostiution topic, was unable to answer this question in the positive: if legalisation of prostitution would lead to a better overall society, would you still be against it? (that's not the same words i used, but that's the point i was getting at and her answer, i think, would be the same)
she said that she couldn't answer that question because prostitution is a sin and she could never support calling evil good. see for yourself in case i'm misquoting her in any way (my point is not to take the piss out of diana, but rather to start a topic about the separation of church and state).
so that got me wondering: would diana's society, a society in which sins (according to the bible) are punished by the criminal law, be desireable? a legal system based purely on morality, such that even if the society would be better off if it could just tolerate some forms of immorality it would rather stick to the message of the law?
a society based on islamic law would see "all those insult mohammed" beheaded (if the signs in the recent london protests are anythign to go by), so would a society based on the christian ideas of sin be any better?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 1, 2006 14:21:18 GMT -5
such that even if the society would be better off if it could just tolerate some forms of immorality If you think making something illegal is the same as not tolerating immorality, Scotland must be a lot more pristine than I thought it was. You should visit here.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 1, 2006 20:32:40 GMT -5
i don't understand what you're getting at, but i'll elaborate on my original point regardless.
the two questions i'm asking are: what is the whole thinking behind the maxim "separation of church and state"? and would a society based on the christian ideas of sin be desireable?
in general, jurisprudence would break the issue down into the familiar debate between morality and economic efficiency. in this particular case morality happens to be based on christianity, which is as good a source as any, really.
the debates generally revolve around specific issues, eg. prostitution. if, in fact, society would be better with a legal form of prostitution (i'm not saying it would be, but for the sake of argument let us presume this is the case), christian morality would still forbid it since it is a sin, but economics would tell us that society would be more efficient with legalisation and so economic analysis of law would advocate legalisation.
there are many other specific instances where this debate arises (eg. breach of contract) but they get a bit complicated and this topic is intended to uncover first of all what the thinking is behind "separation of church and state" and then whether a society based purely on christian values would be a good or bad idea, so i won't go into them here.
so, first things first: what is the thinking behind the maxim "separation of church and state"?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 1, 2006 21:05:35 GMT -5
i don't understand what you're getting at, but i'll elaborate on my original point regardless. I'm saying that criminalizing something doesn't imply intolerance. Absolute enforcement of the law would. But to my knowledge, none of us lives in a State like that. How about if first we talk about the origin of that phrase? It is first documented in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association about religious freedom: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. Let me help those who have difficulty with such language by translating... Believing that religion is a private matter... ...and that no one has to answer to anyone but God about matters of faith and worship... ...and that government cannot enact laws against opinions -- only actions... ...I appeal to God for understanding... ...the action taken by all Americans (via their representatives through the Constitution)... ...which said that the government... ...should make no law prohibiting or endorsing establishment of religion... ...or restricting faith or worship... ...thus protecting religion from the State. I am committed to stick by this voice of the people... ...who believe in the government of conscience over individuals... ...and so I look forward to the progress of these ideals... which are intended to restore to people their natural rights to faith and worship (that were oppressed by a State Church)... ...convinced that there are no natural rights that would keep people from fulfilling social responsibilities. So, you see, this was about freedom to worship. It had nothing to do with keeping one's morality out of legislation. I can provide ample proof of this by quoting the legislation authored by Jefferson. Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist agrees: On seperation of Church and State It is impossible to build sound Constitutional doctrine on a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history... The establishment clause had been expressely freighted with Jeffersons misleading metaphor for nearly forty years... There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of seperation [between church and state]... The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers. William H. Rehnquist 1985 Assoc. Justice U.S. Supreme Court Wallace vs Jafree SOURCE
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 1, 2006 23:04:31 GMT -5
interesting. i suspected that might be what it meant, but the maxim "separation of church and state" was the first thing that popped into my head when you flat out rejected any possibility of legalising prostitution.
so that answers the first question. what about the second, would a society based purely on christian morals be desireable?
the thing with the morality/economics debate is that, realistically, the line has to be drawn somewhere, neither extreme would create a desireable set of laws ...
any thoughts, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Apr 2, 2006 1:03:12 GMT -5
so that answers the first question. what about the second, would a society based purely on christian morals be desireable? No. Mainly because you can't even get the Christians to agree. The USA was founded based upon basic Christian morals. The problem is that the USA was not founded in or on Christianity like so many religious fanatics would like the world to believe.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 2, 2006 8:34:33 GMT -5
Polytheist, are you following that discussion on Spero Forum?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 2, 2006 8:44:02 GMT -5
interesting. i suspected that might be what it meant, but the maxim "separation of church and state" was the first thing that popped into my head when you flat out rejected any possibility of legalising prostitution. It's a common error to interpret it as meaning something the other way around. And, to be honest, I don't imagine Justice Rehnquist's opinion was the only one voiced in that hearing. He might even have been dissenting, for all I know. But the facts support his opinion. As Polytheist pointed out, America is such a State... though he is correct that our Founding Fathers did not intend for a Christian State, but a "moral and religious" one. So, yes, I would say it is desirable. However, we are beyond that point. As John Adams once wrote, the Constitution of the United States is not intended to govern people who are not moral and religious. The words of our Lord: Luke 16:13 13 " No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." [/i][/blockquote]
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Apr 13, 2006 14:49:55 GMT -5
the State should not promote nor discourage any religious practice, except as such practice is in the braking of law.
Sadly this is often only applied to stopping people from being public in their religious beliefs.
The government should recognize the existence of God and be fine with people doing the same, but they should not endorse any particular view of God.
"In God we trust" it is a non denominational statement that we do (or should) put our trust in God.
|
|
|
Post by Tigress on Apr 13, 2006 19:28:31 GMT -5
I feel that the statement 'separation of church and state' should mean that:
a) the Government and all public institutions are neutral in matters of religion b) all laws are based on logic and reason, as opposed to mere [religious] opinion
In light of this, I don't think a society in which biblical sins are punishable by law would be [personally] desirable.
Prostitution may not be a lifestyle choice for you or I, but that's not reason enough to criminalize it.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 14, 2006 9:52:45 GMT -5
What would be reason enough?
If the statistics I previously posted are not, I don't know what on earth would be.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 14, 2006 15:52:27 GMT -5
i agree with tigress' first 4 lines and won't comment on the prostitution issue - there is a lengthy topic of its own already in this section, so go there if you want to discuss it (but read it all first in case your questions have already been answered).
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 26, 2007 2:26:41 GMT -5
I feel that the statement 'separation of church and state' should mean that:
a) the Government and all public institutions are neutral in matters of religion b) all laws are based on logic and reason, as opposed to mere [religious] opinion
In light of this, I don't think a society in which biblical sins are punishable by law would be [personally] desirable.
Prostitution may not be a lifestyle choice for you or I, but that's not reason enough to criminalize it. I agree. Take this same sex marriage issue for example. There have been a few states that have banned same sex marriage. There have been a couple that recognize 'civil contracts'. Most, if not all, the states that flat out ban same sex marriage also have it written that they will not recognize same sex marriages performed in other states that allow it nor will they recognize 'civil unions'. At some point the Federal Government will have to step in an allow the banning or to abolish it or perhaps strike some sort of accord between the two. Here is where it will get mighty interesting. I say interesting because I have yet to hear even one legitimate legal argument that would justify the banning of same sex marriage.
|
|