Religious Freedom Arguments Ultimately Will Fail
While courts have often dismissed arguments other than the religious liberty of those opposed to abortion and gays, the argument is being used more often these days by liberals. Recently a doctor who provided water and food for migrants crossing the border illegally quoted scripture as justification for what he was doing. Back in the day, a similar argument was used by anti war advocates who burned draft cards. Everyone knows the list of passages in the Bible advocating peace is as long as your arm.
As the flag waving political right Christians carry on about their religious freedom, they have little to no interest in that of others. Being a conscientious objector today is harder than it was when I was of draft age. If ever there was a clear violation of religious freedom, the belief that Jesus was about peace and Jesus fans do not believe in war should be center stage. The religious right and conservative judges express no interest in that.
Conservatives who use the Christian faith to justify discrimination against gays or against providing abortion or birth control medicines have less going for them than do anti war protesters. While there is a lot in the Bible for peace there is nothing about abortion or gay marriage.
Someone trying to use religious freedom to get out of some obligation they want to avoid can often use a denomination's written views on some issue. Liberals are now developing their own institutional statements. There are at least two groups using church of Satan titles. Both of these have stated positions and several issues with are, in turn, claimed to be endorsed by the invisible Satan. Even if a church of Satan is relatively new, the concept of Satan is thousands of years old.
As a practical matter, it will never be possible for our laws to accommodate a large and growing number of religious views. The sooner it all stops the better off we all will be.
Jon wrote, “As a practical matter, it will never be possible for our laws to accommodate a large and growing number of religious views.“. I think that about sums it up. As a political matter though accommodation does occur but by restriction and obstruction. Politics is rarely practical. Maybe some other reader can name an Abrahamic religion without a political agenda. I am at a loss. Capitalism in America often seems like an Abrahamic religion. By the way the meek are screwed. Then there’s equality and unicorns, the mythical kinds. Don’t forget fairness – you know like when you have the advantage. Religious freedom for all is nonsense. Religious freedom for some is being codified now. Congress is regulating the establishment of the Christian religion. So I’m left with sort of a quantum mechanical view; freedom from religion is freedom of religion.
ReplyDeleteThe other alternative is if you are a person of faith, or a person of non-faith. Mind your own business. Keep religion out of politics, and politics out of religion . AKA the separation of church and state. "As for me and my house". Not complicated.
ReplyDeleteHelper "AKA the separation of church and state." Excellent advice. Matt's Catholic Church is one of the worst at pushing religion into government.
ReplyDeleteOh, I think your Baptists and Assemblies of the Gods, Evangelicals are just as involved.
DeleteHonesty is always the best policy.
DeleteJon wants his worldview or a select portion of his worldview to be coded in to law.
My Catholic Church wants certain elements coded in to law. But it doesn't want Canon Law dropped in to Canon Law, by any means. Abortion should be outlawed. Missing Mass on Sunday is not a matter of law. Heterosexual marriage, the only marriage, should be enshrined in to law. Homosexual (sic) marriage, an oxymoron, should be outlawed. Not honoring one's parents is not a matter of criminal or civil law. Coveting one's neighbor's possession is not a matter of criminal or civil law but stealing them is a matter of criminal law.
It's fairly simple in most cases.
But it doesn't want Canon Law dropped into US Law, by any means.
DeleteThe First Amendment to the US Constitution, aka the first right in the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Some would say the Second Amendment had one of many purposes to make sure the First Amendment was enforced.
The "separation of church and state" is not found in Constitution or law. In the USA, it is an idea first promulgated by Thomas Jefferson to reassure Baptists that they were secure in their faith knowing that the State would not establish a State religion. The "wall" or "separation" is to keep the government from meddling in religion.
The original concept of separation was introduced by St. Augustine.
The intent of both St. Augustine and Jefferson is to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government. In this regard, the wall is like a heart valve, only allowing blood to flow in one direction.
Feel free to cry in anguish if this does not fit your worldview.
I think that the people who make comments like the foregoing could do with fewer slogans and more thought. what precisely do you mean by separation of church and state? I think I know where old Jon stands. He wants an atheist theocracy, something like the Bolsheviks had. But for the rest of you that sing the same tune without having the slightest idea of the implications of your song, what have got to say specifically?
ReplyDeleteDear Unknowing; I know exactly what the separation of church and state is. It is not theistic OR atheistic. It is not one lording it over the other.
DeleteThe hazard of churches that delve into politics is the diminishing of the original and true purpose of the church. greatly reducing their integrity. Blatantly politicking for a particular candidate or party by a particular church or denomination is not the Evangel. (Look it up). Those of you who call yourselves evangelical and persist in such practices have lost your compass. Shame on your.
Consider 1 cor. 2;2 "I determined to know nothing of you, but Christ crucified. Paul didn't care if you were a Jew, Greek, or anything else. Today, he would say "I don't care if you are a Republican or Democrat. There are churches where politics is forbidden, both from the pulpit and in corporate publications. and both parties are present and welcome.
I don't know of any church where partisan politics are preached from the pulpit (
Delete)tho' I suppose that some do). But what are churches to do if and when their vital interests might be threated? Or when society has become notoriously corrupt? My advice to you Helper is to think things though a little more carefully. and do you share in the condemnation of the churches who didn't stand up for Christian values in Nazi Germany? what about Bonhoeffer (sp?). BTW are you Wisconsin Synod? In fine, I don't pretend to have a cookie cutter answer to the questions that I have raised. partisan politicking could tear a congregation apart. and, of course it could get the church into legal trouble (thanks to LJB and the Texas Baptists)And is there a bright line? Or does in depend?
"I don't know of any church where partisan politics are preached from the pulpit"? That you 'don't know" reveals a limit to your information.
DeleteRe. "vital interests threatened" Do you mean the freedom to preach the Gospel of Jesus, and administer the sacraments? That has happened. Those before me left Germany so they could.
Re Think things through" How would your have conducted yourself with all the years of saturation propaganda under the Nazis, which also included the SS spying on everyone and turning children against parents? Just how have you thought that through? It's one thing to brag today, but not so much back then.
Re. "condemn of churches" Would I condemn them today? yes. Would I or you at the time of the Nazis? There is much to understand and consider. Would you condemn the Jews for not standing up to them? Many Christians, pastors and priests were sent to the furnaces. How would you stand up to that? Remember, there were many Catholic priests that collaberated with the Nazis, especially in the south where most everyone was Catholic. Even the Pope has a cloud over him.
You mean Bonhoffer, the Lutheran minister who was caught in the resistance and was hung with piano wire the day before the end of the war? That Bonhoffer?
Never mind who I am. Consider me an equal opportunity pisser offer when necessary.
Re. "cookie cutter" questions ; Sounds like you still have the stink of theocracy from the Dark Ages..
Unknown; To add to your question; "vital interests threatened, corrupt, etc. I did say something about leaving Germany. At that time, The secular Prussian Union forced my forefathers to submit to syncretism with the Calvinists. It was called the Prussian union church. The king of Prussia wanted everyone to be the same for political reasons. If they didn't submit, and they literally worshiped secretly, they were thrown in prison and property confiscated. That's when they left. That was when the secular forced it's way into matters of church. It was political. What would you do if Trump forced you to become Baptists? No Pope, no Mary, Jail or else? There is the separation of church and state. It's easy to talk big, not so easy if you were in their shoes. then, or under Hitler.
Delete'stink of theocracy". a monumentally stupid remark. how about what the churches could have done when Hitler was coming to power?
DeleteYour "monumentally stupid remark "about what the churches could have done when Hitler was coming to power" reveals a complete ignorance of the conditions in Germany after WW1 that set up the conditions which Hitler took advantage of in his assumption of power. Those were desperate times, and anything that promised improvement was welcome. At first he did good things for the population. Built up their confidence which was nil, did public works, got the economy growing, and developed a strong propaganda machine. By the time the general population realized what was happening, it was virtually too late to do much.
DeleteIt is easy for you to sit here (in comfort) today with 20-20 rear view vision to judge those people, but you were not there. I'm not here to defend anyone, but to point out what was happening before and in the start of the Nazi government. It would not be wise to be so pompous in your attitude without considering all the facts. and/or having lived through it. I rather doubt you have lived in such desperate times as then.
I refer you to paragraphs 3 & 4 in my 5;34. Need I remind you Hitler came from Catholic Austria, and the South of Germany was largely Catholic. Best ask a Catholic collaberator these questions.
Which unknown are you? The Catholic type or atheist type? Right now, it's hard to tell the difference.
PS there still is a stink in the air.
Delete"Theocracy" is a two sided coin. One of state run church, or church run state. History shows both sides have been present. Sure signs of the absence of the separation of church and state. Both had negative impacts.
Deleteunknown; You must also know that the churches in Germany and other European countries were in large part assisted by the government. AKA "State Church". Ya kinda think that wasn't another factor?
DeleteHelper--"...that wasn't another factor."
DeleteHitler and the rise of his group must have been more complex than we can understand today. There was a lady who worked at the NDSU book store for decades, Isla, whom everyone liked. She wrote a short book and gave talks about her experiences in WWII Germany. She met the young Hitler when he dropped in at a wedding. While she did not support the Nazis she never came to believe he was the original source of it all. She seized him up as well intentioned but pushed or drawn into bad circles by political handlers.
Jon. Hitler's book Mein Kampf was written early on in prison. The sales of it made him personally a rich man. I've read it, and it is a revealing outline of much of his intentions. I'm sure there were many sympathisers and he had like minded handlers. I personally knew a man since dead who was studying in Germany at the time. He reported his strong convincing, almost mesmerizing (his words) personality. My friend was in attendance at one of those night torch rallies. He said he could almost taste the evil in the air. He quietly walked backwards towards the back of the crowd and went home. Shortly before my friend died, he said the closest thing he could compare to Hitler was the news and picture releases of Charles Manson. Yes, I can see why many thought he was well intentioned. He did bring Germany out of the post ww1 depression. Up to that point, what's not to like. BUT LATER,
DeleteJon; @ 10;38 After reading your post, the content had nothing to do with "that wasn't another factor".
DeleteMy 10;26 , (another factor) was all about German churches.
Please
Helper "those late night torch rallies."
DeleteI read an account by an American soldier who was a POW. He wrote that during the long and boring POW life there was an announcement, Hitler was coming to speak to the prison. Prior to Hitler mounting the platform to speak there were big intro ceremonies. When Hitler walked on there was patriotic music, cheering and someone started the "Hale Hitler" chat. The POW said it was all so infectious he had to grab his right arm with his left hand to keep from raising it.
I'll wager that if Arby or Pelosi or AOC quoted Scripture in support of their favorite leftist programs, most of the bloggers here would stand and cheer. no separation there. old Matt gave a good answer to my question. strange that no one else did. BTW what about morality and the state? St Augustine said that an immoral law is no law at all. And what about the Christians (unhappily too few) that stood up to the Nazi regime?
ReplyDelete@ 2'32' "Most of the bloggers here would stand and cheer. " YOU WOULD BE WRONG ! You have a separation of reality. It would be interesting to hear you squeal if that 501-c3 is pulled by the atheists due to your abuse. (You do know they would like to do just that. There have been preachers that have dared them to do so. )
Deletere. "favorite leftist program"; I remember back 60 yr. ago, most of the leftists were Democrats.
PS That leaves each member free to vote as he/she wishes.
ReplyDeleteof course all that helper says about Germany is mostly true. only a few people saw the Nazis for what they were until it was too late as you say. but even at a late stage could massive resistance have thwarted the Nazis? to round out story, it wasn't only the churches that "caved". much of the press and the opposition parties did also. There was, however, open opposition in some Catholic quarters and, more notably in the military. that said, there is no point in going into it now. My original point was simply this: when, to what extent, and for what reason can churches actively, overtly and forcefully challenge state power? Unfortunately. as I said, there is no "cookie cutter" answer to such questions. Over time, I have given the matter some thought and have not come up with a pat response. I only hope that you think about it, too. Bromides swirling around some kind of absolutist concept of separation of church and state just doesn't get it.
DeleteUnknown. Return to my 5;34 paragraphs 3 and 4..
DeleteRe. "could have massive resistance have thwarted the Nazis? Yes. It was called the Normandy invasion. It took Normandy in conjunction with in -country resistance. All the European countries combined could not. or it would have taken years for the rot to grow so intense it would have collapsed on itself. In the meantime, evidence shows Christianity and anyone not of Arian blood would have been eliminated as the Jews had.
re. "challenge state power"; Answer; yes. There was the Reformation, There was Bonhoffer, based on the balance of power between civil law and abuse. If you read Bonhoffer's "The Cost of Discipleship" and "Ethics" you will find the principal of "Two Realms" and the need apply ethics as an interaction between the two. When the first realm (secular) is in error, the second realm, ( Christian or not, ethics)must step in and correct it. A small example would be if you saw someone being beaten to death, the ethical thing would be to step in and stop it, even to the point of justifiable homicide. A parallel to "The Proper Distinction Between Law And Gospel.
Your anxiety on the issue of the separation of church and state is wrongly applied. or misunderstood. You want a one size fits all. That just does not work. My context is narrow, and it specifically involves either side meddling in the other. In one case, the sacred (church) demanding an issue of the secular. The other case, the secular demanding an issue of the sacred (church). A prime example would be the Prussian Union. (secular) demanding a merger between the Reformed, (Calvinists), and the Lutherans. on the matters of TULIP, and the Real Presence at the Sacrament. This is not complicated.
Unknown; In your confusion, I recommend the book; "Tyranny and Resistance" "The Magdeburg Confession" of 1550 ad. CPH. A small book. 142 pages, including forward, bibliography and index. Also available paperback; 1795 on Amazon. This should help you to better understand.
DeleteSorry helper but I specifically said that there is no cookie cutter/one size fits all answer regarding the point at which religious interests/principles should be marshalled in the public square. or, if you prefer, imposed on the body politic. do read my post more carefully. BTW, it seems that Bonhoeffer had some Lutheran reservations about tyrannicide. Seems to have eventually come 'round to a more Catholic take on the matter.
ReplyDeleteUnknown; I do read your,( and any others) posts carefully. "Catholic", meaning universal. Your conclusions are where we depart. See the last paragraph of my 2;54. Then get the "Tyranny and Resistance" book. The title alone should tweak your interest.
DeleteYour "cookie cutter" remarks seem to demand an exact answer that you yourself can't answer, or comprehend.
Buy the book. We're done here.
Unknown; And evidently unknown to you, you don't have exclusive "takes" on anything. Now you'r sounding like a pre-vat 2 Catholic. Or like the little priest jimmie on Jon's blog a few years ago. I do miss him so. The more he talked, the more radical he became. He made claims and conflated all over the place. He finally went dark when proven wrong, and he couldn't wiggle out of it. So much for his exclusive "takes".
ReplyDeleteApologies helper but I just don't follow you. Whatever I have posted in quite clear in my own mind. And find it difficult to understand why you don't understand. Looks as if we live in two distinct intellectual worlds. With that, we're done here.
ReplyDeleteStart at the top and s-l-o-w-l-y work your way down.
DeleteE.G. your "takes" comment. Do you even understand the use of that term in the context of its use here? In common parlance it simply means my understanding of something; my perspective, if you will. how then can you say that I don't have exclusive takes on anything. that's nonsense. if anything I simply said that I have a perspective, nothing necessarily exclusive. get a grip, fellow.
ReplyDeleteIf you go back to your "takes" comment, @ 4;27. the context was "Come 'round to a more Catholic take on the matter" You imply the Catholic "take" is exclusive of all others, and agreement is submission to the Catholic Church. Such arrogance.
DeleteHow far you have drifted from the topic of separation of church and state.
What's next? How many strawberries go into a pie as defined by the Vatican, and would Hitler allow it?
you like to find issues where there are none. mine was merely a historical observation, a remark re something that actually occurred (as far as I know). quit looking for bogey men where none are to be found. maybe you are suffering from a little Lutheran paranoia.
DeleteNo paranoia., No bogey men. You just can't read and comprehend what I said. However, you do read more into the subject than is there.
DeleteThere is a large amount of phylosophical gymnastics in Catholic polemics. From Aquinas, to Trent, and the new Catechism. All elements you are proud of. Much of which I disagree with. Disagreement is not paranoia. You can't handle disagreement, and call it paranoia. That in and of itself qualifies for paranoia. ie. (How dare you question me.)
Your "historical observation " is only a failed opinion
I repeat my 9;54; "Back to the original topic on the separation of church and state. See my 2;53, ---3rd paragraph." Again not complicated, no paranoia. No Hitler, No Rome, no strawberries, Just the facts.
error; 2;54, not 2;53. Wrong key. See below.
DeleteUnknown; Back to the original topic on the separation of church and state. See my 2;54--3rd paragraph. Not complicated. No Hitler, no Rome, no strawberries. No phylosophical gymnastics.
ReplyDelete"failed opinion" apparently you think that you have THE WORD FROM ON HIGH. how about arrogance? that aside my knowledge of the Bonhoeffer issue had to do with the Catholic vs. the Lutheran attitudes toward tyrannicide. had to do with the 20 Jul 1944 plot to kill Hitler. go look it up. And I really hope that this is the end of our "dialog". as to strawberries, go out and order up some strawberry delight.it might improve you outlook.
ReplyDeleteAnd You think the Catholic position is exclusive? Sheeit.
DeleteThis is not the end of the "dialog", as you have avoided the original topic of the separation of church and state. Bonhoffer is only., a diversion. That won't work. Stay on topic. Did you know he was involved with the Barmen Declaration? A compromise to appease the Nazis so the church could exist. In time that would have been doomed. He was also aligned with Union Seminary, and progressives in spite of his "lutheraness".
Your "Bolsheviks" is nothing more than hyperbole. You asked what I had to say, and I told you following immediately with my 2;55.
You and Matt want to muddy the clear separation of church and state. Matt's "certain elements coded into law" apart from canon law is what you want.
Are your doctrines and members so weak you have to resort to Federal law to police your own members? This is where the stink of theocracy comes from. It worked well in the dark ages, but not now.
You must know I am not in favor of those "certain elements", but they start in home, and in house. Not in the secular world. You cannot police the secular, nor should you. That is not the purpose of "church. Again I refer you to my 2;55. Read all of it.
That would be called ; legislating the faith / faithful. Stink? you betcha.
DeleteBack to my 2;55. Read it several times. For shame. Get a new compass
Now to anticipate your retort on Bonhoffer, re. Barmen .By strictly adhering to it's articles, it not only took the state out of the church, but kept the church out of state business. I've mentioned this before, but most people think the separation is church out of state, but the other side of that is state out of church. None of this prevents individual citizens from voting or acting their conscience. Here comes the "Left Kingdom, and the Right Kingdom. (in the words of Bonhoffer), AKA "the sacred and the secular" Mankind lives in both worlds.He/she has responsibilities/ compliance issues in both. When one side is not in balance with the other, one has the responsibility to correct that balance. Such was the time during the period of the Nazis.
DeleteYou want to claim the Catholic "take" on this as the authoritarian force, as an authority which it does not have. This "two kingdom" understanding is centuries earlier, with the proposed question of "Is this Law, or Gospel"
In fact, much earlier than that. The Hebrew Bible, AKA Old Testament, was mostly law, with a hint of Gospel.-----The New Testament, is mostly Gospel, with the reminder of the law.
Deletehelper: maybe "classical" take would have been a better term. of course. as you know (and condemn) Catholic morality has absorbed much of the classical political and ethical worldview. In any event, Bonhoeffer obviously wrestled with his pacifist and Lutheran convictions, yet decided to participate in the Hitler assignation plot. BTW you might at least spell the man's name correctly.
ReplyDeleteUnknowing; re. (condemn), Wrong again. The more accurate would be "political expedient" to farther expand the reach of the RCC, through church co-mingling with state. A well established fact from before the middle ages, up to this date when possible.
Delete"BTW You might at least admit" co-mingling issues of church and state in many many instances around the world.
Un; Who has the authority to kill people? The church or state?
Deletere. spelling------Petty
Deletepetty for petty. an RCC conspiracy to expand its reach? oh dear! how dastardly. do I recall correctly that the Lutherans and Luther particularly owed their good fortune to state intervention/protection. maybe that violated your principle of separation. just maybe?
ReplyDeleteYes. I agree. Glad you brought it up. It did violate the principal of separation, but that was then and there,, and we are here. It was not the right thing, but it was the precedent started before the reformation. and the RCC has equally benefited with a clear conscience. The peasants had little resources to support such an enterprise. In light of that, the only sufficient funding would have to come from the landowners, princes, king and profits from the famous pilgrimages to see relics with the proviso of indulgences.. Rome however was on the receiving end at the time due to the proceeds from indulgences and the building of St. Peters.
DeleteIt was just too convenient not to change the system. Unfortunately, the result is, the people had no real personal investment in church, beyond instilled guilt of the Roman community, and is one of the reasons churches have been failing in Europe today. In America, the members wound up to be the financial supporters, with a much more personal interest in their institutions. Today, even that is not as strong as it used to be. As society has become most mobile, loyalty to the local church isn't so important, both in attendance and contributions. There was talk in Europe over a century ago as how to put churches on a personal member sustaining basis, but time has chosen to take the path of leas resistance and do nothing much . Today, some Scandanavian countries have started to break up the state dependence, and a start in Germany. In fact there is a "Free Lutheran church," Creedal liturgical, and confessing (subscribing to Concord), now including a seminary, there that is self supporting. Small at the start, but the membership is in regular and loyal attendance. As it should have been all along. Today, the State Evangelical Church is a collective of syncretism, and doctrine is watered town with progressives and indifferent attitudes. Like warm milk. I see no long range future for it. It is crumbling from within when state support is no longer there.
Now, I remind you to go to my 6;34, and the state sponsored, syncratic forced merger of the Lutherans and Reformed (Calvinists) which forced the lutherans to co-mingle services under penalty of jail or property, upon which they left Germany for the US, and Australia, and became self supporting, and grew into a large synod, based on the confessions of the Book of Concord. With that hard won experience they became strongly in favor of the separation of church and state. Contrary to that, many of the post reformed churches and the Catholic Church are dabbling in minimizing that separation, which has been the cause of much of the problems over the centuries.
DeleteAnd you must remember the Catholic Church was the progenitor of Christian theocracy.
DeleteDid I spell progenitor correctly?
Actually, Jesus does say that marriage is between a male and female. But since atheists can no longer even define a male or female since they claim that genders aren't based on anatomy, then I can see why they wouldn't understand what Jesus said. lol. Nevertheless, God doesn't buy the stupidity of atheists. He knows they're not as stupid as they appear. ;) As for abortion, "Do not kill" is a commandment. Again, either atheists don't know that terminating a pregnancy is killing an infant or they don't know that God is referring to humans in that commandment. But again, since atheists have the capacity to think but choose not to exercise it, then God won't let them get by with their love of killing infants either. ;)
ReplyDeleteCarico "Actually, Jesus does say that marriage is between a male and female."
DeleteI can only repeat, quotes attributed to Jesus do not include a condemnation of homosexuality. Lots of the Bible's heroes had multiple wives. He does not condemn them either.
Carico, you have been a loyal troll here for many years. I hope you will read the Bible before posting again.
But don't worry, Jon, the Bible prophesies that most people will turn away from the faith. (Mt. 24:9-13). They'll have to become as evil as the people before Noah (which Jesus also prophesied) in order to worship the beast (the final anti-Christ). God is waiting for the whole world to keep descending into depravity and deceit before He will punish the whole world for their love of evil and hatred of His laws. So the decrease in the Christian faith just proves the Bible true. :)
ReplyDeleteCarico "They'll have to become evil as the people before Noah (which Jesus also prophesied)"
ReplyDeleteI'll have to get out my Bible and look this up. I thought Jesus was born a long time AFTER the Noah flood.