A new letter to the editor has just been sent:
I believe that John Kass, in a
column that ran in Saturday's WSJ, has unintentionally demonstrated the
reason for and value of separation of Church and State. He refers to a
"stridently secular big-government West that regards Christianity as a
competitor, an obstacle to overcome, if not an outright threat to
squash." Actually, there is no competition between them, as the two
institutions have different missions.
The Church's primary
mission is to prepare its members to be judged by 'God,' at the end of
their worldly lives. The State's is to establish justice in THIS
world. Hence the Church's willingness to not punish members of its
clergy apparently guilty of some of society's most heinous crimes,
preferring to let 'God' punish or forgive as 'He' sees fit. And the
State's (usual) insistence on holding perpetrators to account.
There
is only 'competition' when one institution attempts to usurp the role
of the other. Nobody thinks the State should serve a religious
purpose. Why do some evidently think that religion should serve a
governmental purpose? There is no need to 'squash' Christianity, only to remind various people of its mission, and its proper role in a democratic society.
I have always been torn by my thoughts of religion and politics Kevin. Mainly, the virtue that so many politicians have due to religion, and wanting the Government to pass laws based on these religious morals. One mans morals may not be the same as the next, and politicians seem to have a hard time understanding this.
ReplyDeleteMy thought is we base our laws on the Constitution, not on anyone's religion.
DeleteI agree. I just wish politicians would stop trying to pass new laws based on the teachings of their church. I wish the separation of Church & State went to that avenue as well.
DeleteWell I essentially agree, though we get into a grey area when we talk about 'based on the teachings of their church.' I don't see that as a disqualifying reason so much as it being irrelevant. If someone authors a bill and brings it up for a vote it should be voted on, based on its merits. Whether or not someone's religion inspired it seems no more relevant to me than if it was inspired by a political science professor, or a basketball coach that the legislator admired. Either the proposed law has merit or it doesn't.
Delete"Either the proposed law has merit or it doesn't."
ReplyDeleteVery true Kevin but I ask you this. Has a GOP candidate, or elected official ever discussed the banning of abortions without mentioning God?
Possibly. Maybe not. But that's my point. Their 'God' doesn't get a vote. ; )
ReplyDeleteNAC,
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff!
What I fear most is a theocracy in this nation. I don't want someone(s) dictating to me about how I should act based upon their moral principles.
What the Democrats need to do is use the teaching of Jesus about caring for the poor, sick, and hungry against the neo conservative evangelical Bible thumpers.
Take from the poor and reward the rich? Find that in the good book...
Sarge
We'll see if it gets printed ...
DeleteKevin, it should print, it's very good. If you need me to I will call the paper and get it done. It's not a tribune paper is it? Kochs are going to buy Tribune and all their papers, after that Fox will look like a bunch of voter fraud lovin democrats.
ReplyDeleteIt went in Thursday. A few comments, online, pointing out that I have it all wrong, which I rebutted.
DeleteSorry I didn't reply sooner; for some reason blogspot periodically decides to not recognize my log in.
http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/mailbag/kevin-j-mack-state-not-church-seeks-justice-in-this/article_991687be-9185-11e2-a4d3-0019bb2963f4.html
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete