From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Church/State separation
Summary: Who said the State was moral?
Keywords: state, church, separation, religious liberty, `Woof!'
Organization: Glassboro State College (Until Tomorrow, That Is)
Disclaimer: Brandy the Wonderdog wants an end to specism.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:01:37 GMT


 [ Note: Glassboro State College is scheduled to become Rowan College of
   New Jersey effective tomorrow.  I expect my email address to change
   shortly, but I do not know when. ]

Jeff Young writes

> Most Christians believe you can't have morals without religion as a basis.
> Doesn't this imply they believe Church/State separation is misguided?  If
> not, how do you explain this apparent inconsistency?

To begin with, nobody ever said that governments were going to act morally,
or even that morality was the job of government.

I believe that the government's job is to maintain public order: to ensure
that nobody's rights get stomped on by anybody else.  There are obviously
problems that come up here, in questions like "who has rights" and "what are
they", but in many cases there is widespread agreement.  If the government is
going to limit somebody's rights -- if the government is going to enforce laws
that do NOT protect someone against unwelcome behaviour -- then there should
be a reasonably good argument to demonstrate the necessity of this limitation.

The morality of the prohibited action should not matter in questions of
legislation; only the action's reasonably foreseeable affects on unwilling
participants.  One standard example in talk.religion.misc is homosexual
activity: some people INSIST that it should be illegal, but I cannot figure
out why.  It is not obvious to me that two homosexuals in their bedroom are
doing anybody any harm.  As far as legislation goes, religious objections to
homosexual activity seem pointless, unless it can be shown that homosexuals
interfere with someone's practice of his religion. 


As a Christian, I have ideas about right and wrong; I think that some things
are immoral to do (adultery) and some things are immoral to not do (helping
others in need).  Whether adultery is legal or not, I am not going to do it;
someone who would be unfaithful will probably do so regardless of the laws.
If the government removes legal barriers to immoral behaviour, that will not
push me into committing whatever-acts-become-legal.  If somebody else DOES
engage in that behaviour, but it doesn't affect others, then I don't see why
I have any business complaining.

I *do* believe that Christians are called to share their beliefs and help
others recognise and cease from immorality -- but I *also* believe that any
use of force is unacceptable.  When laws are enforced, it is usually by large
men with guns and clubs, who are being violent or implicitly threatening
violence -- any religious-specific legislation which is so enforced amounts to
spreading the Gospel message through violence, which is (IMHO) not acceptable
for Christians.  (I've always felt that those who would legislate their faith
are just lazy -- instead of doing the hard work of living out Jesus' words and
showing a living Christ to the community, they just want to have somebody else
punish those who disagree.)


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work."
                                    -- from _The Baptist Faith and Message_
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc