John list ten "rules" concerning the separation of church and state. I thought I might respond to those rules in the context of a non-American. It will be interesting to see if there's a difference in how Americans perceive "separation of church and state" and how it's perceived in other countries.
John's rules are in boldface and my response are in italics.
10 Commandments of the Separation of Church and State:
1. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.I disagree in the sense that many countries with a state church don't seem to have as the same problems as the USA. So, I would not advocate a hard and fast rule that forbids state religions. I don't think a modern country should set up a new state religion but neither do I think that existing ones need to be abolished. I would definitely support disestablishment, myself, but antidisestabishmentarianism shouldn't be illegal.2. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.I disagree with this as well. There's nothing seriously wrong with tax breaks for religious charities, for example and there's nothing wrong with laws that proclaim national holidays on days with special religious significance for one group. (e.g., Good Friday) I prefer to live in a society that chooses not to favor religions but it shouldn't be illegal.3. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will.Nobody disagrees with the "force" part but the "influence" part is a different story. I favor a government that influences people to stay away from churches that preach hatred and bigotry.4. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.Everyone agrees with this one.5. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs.I agree in principle. There might be some extreme cases of religions that merit banning but these are exceptions. In a case where one's religious beliefs might case harm (e.g., refusing blood transfusions for children) the state is justified in stepping in even though this can easily be seen as punishment.6. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious disbeliefs.This one seems pretty straightforward. It's the one that's most difficult to enforce, however. Right now atheists would have a very hard time getting elected in many parts of the USA.7. No person can be punished for church attendance or non-attendance.Same as #5.8. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.I disagree. Tax money is used to support religious schools in Canada and many European countries. While I would argue strongly against such a practice, I see no reason to make it against the law. It's a matter for society to decide, not the courts.9. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups.Lots of countries have state religions. In modern civilized countries, they're pretty harmless for the most part. I don't see any reason to have a constitutional amendment in Great Britain.10. No religious organizations or groups can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of a state or the Federal Government.Same response as #9.
0 Yorumlar