tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-144235032583435175.post8241069004602067074..comments2023-10-23T10:33:29.509-07:00Comments on More Than Just Adam's Rib: Invasive Surgery: Separating Church & StateJenniferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01154350786925948762noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-144235032583435175.post-67099090448519302302012-04-17T17:58:21.106-07:002012-04-17T17:58:21.106-07:00Doug: I totally agree with you about what separati...Doug: I totally agree with you about what separation of church and state are "supposed" to be. I am completely for a government that doesn't force a certain belief structure on a people. My critique is that "church and state" is being interpreted in modern times as meaning the two are incompatible. The doctrine is being used to push God to the fringes so that one must appear to check her religious beliefs at the door when entering the realm of politics or state. <br /><br />Morality is not religion, but religion does inform morality. The problem comes when some have deemed that religion should play no part in politics, that anything that could be construed as advancing religion (such as laws opposed to homosexual marriage or abortion) have no place in the political arena. <br /><br />Morality, then, gets equated with religion and is negated by default. Granted, this is not as was intended, but interpretations of the Constitution aren't always as the original writers planned. (Yes, that makes me a strict constructionist). Thanks for the good dialogue.Jenniferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01154350786925948762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-144235032583435175.post-28146558776903782202012-04-14T11:51:13.974-07:002012-04-14T11:51:13.974-07:00The constitutional principle of separation of chur...The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not, as you seem to suppose, require anyone to separate his or her morality from daily life and decisions. Nor does it prevent citizens from making political decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.<br /><br />Confusion understandably arises because the constitutional principle is sometimes equated with a political doctrine that generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that approach are many, but two primary ones are that it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and, further, it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is). Rather, it is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct ourselves in political dialogue. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.com