At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. -Sandra Day O'Connor
I heard the above quote on an NPR piece on the way to work. I wanted to think on it further when I got a chance so I looked up the document from which it came and also found the following quote. (source: I don't cite supreme court stuff at all so here's how I got there. www.supremecourtus.gov , opinions, latest slip opinions, McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., pages 41-44 of the pdf is the O'Connor, J. concurring section I read.)
It is true that the Framers lived at a time when our national religious diversity was neither as robust nor as well recognized as it is now. They may not have foreseen the variety of religions for which this Nation would eventually provide a home. They surelycould not have predicted new religions, some of them born in this country. But they did know that line-drawing between religions is an enterprise that, once begun, has no logical stopping point. They worried that “the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects.” -Sandra Day O'Connor
I believe in Mosaic Law and God. I also believe that the founders of this nation used such beliefs as the motivation to our nation's founding documents. However, I think that this nation has grown beyond being a Christian nation and our government should reflect that. That isn't to say that I think we should go back and strip out any hint of religion from everything governmental. Rather think of Newtonian physics and quantum physics. Newtonian physics works well for a lot of things, but a more thourough understanding comes from the application of quantum physics. We haven't gotten rid of Newtonian physics and we haven't burned all the old physics books or stopped mentioning it in textbooks. But we have made note of why we still keep it around and don't use it when it isn't applicable. Today, this country has the opportunity to allow, and protect, religous freedom. Not just my religion and not just my general category of religion. All religion, or lack there-of. Honor the past but don't offend the present or hinder the future.
2 comments:
so how would you formulate religion from the governemnts point of view from here forward? for example: we sware on the bible in court, PROMISE to tell the truth (appealing to the authority of God), etc...
so we can't very well write the history of christianity off, but if we were to redo the courts for example, what would you propose?
i think that to some extent has already been done away with. see the nevada revised statues http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-050.html#NRS050Sec035
apparently because of the religous element of taking an oath, non-believers weren't allowed to testify in court originally
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/21atheists.htm
i think things are slowly changing... i don't think having people swear on a bible makes them tell the truth. to me, the country or state or whatever has to have a law to make it illegal to tell lies in court, we can't count on people to have the right moral system. not even christians. i think of the btk guy who was an active member of a church. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/28/cnna.btk/ i don't think bringing God into our judicial system as an oath helps it any. it should, but it doesn't.
Post a Comment