Re: Only my religion, please.
*This post is in response to Malin von Euler-Hogan's previous article from earlier today*
In essence, the big question is this: did the Founding Fathers, in their call for separation of church and state, intend for 1) any and all religions in the population to be shown and practiced prior to and during stately matters at the statesmen’s discretion (orgy of religion) or 2) lack of religious interference or influence prior to and during stately matters (total absence of religion)?
To answer this question, one has to acknowledge that the Founding Fathers very likely did not even agree on which of these two was best. Likely, there would have been a split. At the time, with America already becoming a mixing pot of races and religions, the inclusion of all religions to guarantee that no one specific church from the course of the state would have been an adequate solution for freedom of religion. However, some Founding Fathers, although supporting the ideal of freedom of religion, likely would have preferred this freedom be practice out of the courtroom and congressional chambers. They might have easily argued that the best way to ensure this freedom would be to keep the church and state completely removed from one-another.
Regardless of the intent of the Founding Fathers, whether it was 1) orgy of religion or 2) total absence of religion in stately matters, (if there was agreement at all) practicality and application are the deciding factors in the end. And at the time of the constitution (and still today) religion was as integral with society as manners. Whether you have manners and to what degree is not something that can magically be removed or abolished from the courtrooms and congressional chambers, but allowed and encouraged outside of them.
The practical approach certainly doesn't involve opening each day with a prayer from every religion imaginable. The best way to preserve freedom of religion is the second option--absence of religion--because otherwise the strongest and most widely practiced religions will have greater influence on the matters of the state. Although this will happen to some degree no matter what--since absolute absence cannot be truly achieved with such an integral institution--efforts need to be continued to reduce it as much as possible.
In essence, the big question is this: did the Founding Fathers, in their call for separation of church and state, intend for 1) any and all religions in the population to be shown and practiced prior to and during stately matters at the statesmen’s discretion (orgy of religion) or 2) lack of religious interference or influence prior to and during stately matters (total absence of religion)?
To answer this question, one has to acknowledge that the Founding Fathers very likely did not even agree on which of these two was best. Likely, there would have been a split. At the time, with America already becoming a mixing pot of races and religions, the inclusion of all religions to guarantee that no one specific church from the course of the state would have been an adequate solution for freedom of religion. However, some Founding Fathers, although supporting the ideal of freedom of religion, likely would have preferred this freedom be practice out of the courtroom and congressional chambers. They might have easily argued that the best way to ensure this freedom would be to keep the church and state completely removed from one-another.
Regardless of the intent of the Founding Fathers, whether it was 1) orgy of religion or 2) total absence of religion in stately matters, (if there was agreement at all) practicality and application are the deciding factors in the end. And at the time of the constitution (and still today) religion was as integral with society as manners. Whether you have manners and to what degree is not something that can magically be removed or abolished from the courtrooms and congressional chambers, but allowed and encouraged outside of them.
The practical approach certainly doesn't involve opening each day with a prayer from every religion imaginable. The best way to preserve freedom of religion is the second option--absence of religion--because otherwise the strongest and most widely practiced religions will have greater influence on the matters of the state. Although this will happen to some degree no matter what--since absolute absence cannot be truly achieved with such an integral institution--efforts need to be continued to reduce it as much as possible.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< E-Liberal Home