Post by gillianren on Aug 24, 2010 12:53:45 GMT -4
I'm going to deal with all of your misunderstandings, here, but it's going to take a minute, because they are plentiful.
What you have is separation of Church and State as enshrined in the US Constitution. A secular government and a freedom of religion. Religious figures are not forbidden from talking about political matters; let's not forget that one of the prime social movers of the twentieth century was also a Baptist minister. And no one paying attention over the last, say, thirty-two years can really believe that politicians in the United States can't or don't court religious groups for their support. Heck, at that, Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school while in office!
That is very, very similar to the situation in the United States. The difference is that, in the United States, while our Constitution specifically forbids a "religious test" for office, the general population mostly doesn't get that. There are non-Christian elected officials in the United States, even unto being in Congress, but it will be a very long time before a non-Christian gets elected President, because a lot of Americans don't believe in our Constitutionally-protected freedom to worship as we choose. We're expected to meet the standards of the community, not our own beliefs, apparently.
I'm failing to see how that's different from the current situation in the United States. As long as the Churches are staying in their sphere, not trying to force their views on the general population, and as long as they're meeting certain basic requirements (not performing human sacrifice, for example), the State cannot interfere. Similarly, you can be an elected official who is as religious as you like, even unto being a minister or a Sunday school teacher, but your actual Church isn't allowed to control law.
You haven't looked at a roadside in the United States any time recently, have you? Or, come to that, Arlington National Cemetery. (Or Riverside National Cemetery, where my father is buried under a plaque with a cross on it.) The US Constitution does not forbid religious displays on public land per se, and even the ACLU doesn't think it does. What it forbids is any symbol which indicates the government is directly supporting that particular religion. My dad can be buried under that cross because that cross represents what my dad believed. It might interest you to consider this link. www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp
So. What's the fuss about, oh, a giant stone representation of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse? There's a simple, basic difference which a lot of people seem to miss. It is, in fact, true that there is also a representation of the Ten Commandments in the US Supreme Court building. In the Supreme Court's mural, it is one of many showing lawgivers. Napoleon is up there, and Hammurabi, and so forth. It serves a purely secular context which is not "this is the law upon which the United States is founded," which has a couple of legal and religious issues anyway. The problem with, say, Christmas displays in our state Capitol building is that, if they don't allow Jews and Hindus and Muslims and, yes, Pagans to have theirs, too, it looks like the government is saying only Christian holidays matter, not ours. As long as it's not a claim that the State and the Church are intertwined, you can have a gospel choir doing a concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. As has happened.
Yeah, it sounds a lot like the one we're supposed to have. Formal separation of Church and State.
See this is one of the reasons I think that USAians are crazy. Every now and then some lunitic tries to convince people over here to adopt a formal Separation of Church and State coming up withe most flimsy of reasons of why it should be done, and they always get shot down by it being pointed out that we have a secular Government and a freedom of religion that is not only protected by our Government, but participated in. Rather than excluding all religions from our political arena, we invite all to participate as equals be they Anglican, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or none at all. This has resulted in even having a number of religious based political parties and politicians actively courting religious groups for their support.
What you have is separation of Church and State as enshrined in the US Constitution. A secular government and a freedom of religion. Religious figures are not forbidden from talking about political matters; let's not forget that one of the prime social movers of the twentieth century was also a Baptist minister. And no one paying attention over the last, say, thirty-two years can really believe that politicians in the United States can't or don't court religious groups for their support. Heck, at that, Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school while in office!
Yet still we are a secular nation. We have no State Religion, and in fact it is illegal for the Government to create laws that would favour any religion, or group of religions, over any other meaning that even if a religious party does manage to get sway in Parliment, they could do nothing that created discrimination against anyone, despite what some of them would like to think. In fact the United Future Party has been able to influence the last two Governments, and we haven't turned into a Theoracy yet.
That is very, very similar to the situation in the United States. The difference is that, in the United States, while our Constitution specifically forbids a "religious test" for office, the general population mostly doesn't get that. There are non-Christian elected officials in the United States, even unto being in Congress, but it will be a very long time before a non-Christian gets elected President, because a lot of Americans don't believe in our Constitutionally-protected freedom to worship as we choose. We're expected to meet the standards of the community, not our own beliefs, apparently.
What it all really means is that the Government doesn't tell the churches what to do, and the Churches themselves don't get involved directly (there was a bit of a stink a few years back when the Breathren Church appeared to be doing this) though they may offer unformal commentary and guidance much as anyone else in the cheap seats.
I'm failing to see how that's different from the current situation in the United States. As long as the Churches are staying in their sphere, not trying to force their views on the general population, and as long as they're meeting certain basic requirements (not performing human sacrifice, for example), the State cannot interfere. Similarly, you can be an elected official who is as religious as you like, even unto being a minister or a Sunday school teacher, but your actual Church isn't allowed to control law.
It also means that we can have white crosses beside the road up and down the length of the country, each a monument to someone that has died in that spot. In the States these would be considered religious monuments and not allowed on public property. Here the only issue here is if the LTSA thinks that they might be in a dangerous place, and then they request they are moved to a position that they won't cause further accidents due to people stopping in poor visiblity places.
You haven't looked at a roadside in the United States any time recently, have you? Or, come to that, Arlington National Cemetery. (Or Riverside National Cemetery, where my father is buried under a plaque with a cross on it.) The US Constitution does not forbid religious displays on public land per se, and even the ACLU doesn't think it does. What it forbids is any symbol which indicates the government is directly supporting that particular religion. My dad can be buried under that cross because that cross represents what my dad believed. It might interest you to consider this link. www.cem.va.gov/hm/hmemb.asp
So. What's the fuss about, oh, a giant stone representation of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse? There's a simple, basic difference which a lot of people seem to miss. It is, in fact, true that there is also a representation of the Ten Commandments in the US Supreme Court building. In the Supreme Court's mural, it is one of many showing lawgivers. Napoleon is up there, and Hammurabi, and so forth. It serves a purely secular context which is not "this is the law upon which the United States is founded," which has a couple of legal and religious issues anyway. The problem with, say, Christmas displays in our state Capitol building is that, if they don't allow Jews and Hindus and Muslims and, yes, Pagans to have theirs, too, it looks like the government is saying only Christian holidays matter, not ours. As long as it's not a claim that the State and the Church are intertwined, you can have a gospel choir doing a concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. As has happened.
Overall, I'm happy keeping our system.
Yeah, it sounds a lot like the one we're supposed to have. Formal separation of Church and State.