Recently in my Government class it has become apparent to me that many people seem to have a strange understanding of the concept "separation of church and state." Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the intent of their remarks, but to me it seems that they think everything said in a church is non-permissible in government. Take a part of today's discussion, for example. We were talking about stem-cell research, and how Bush had put some major road-blocks in the way of it, based on his beliefs as a Christian. One or two of the people were spouting off about how horrible that was, asking whatever happened to separation between church and state?
Well here's the answer for them. The concept of separating church and state has absolutely nothing to do with keeping church morals out of the government office. It keeps a church from controlling government, and keeps government from controlling a church of its own. It is my humble opinion that people need morals, and like it or not, churches happen to be a good place to come by them. If someone who goes to a church should *gasp* become President or something drastic like that, more power to 'em. This means I know that they have some morals at least. I expect for the person to then act on those morals, regardless of where they got them. If Bush had gotten the idea that killing embryos for research was bad from somewhere asides from church, it's his prerogative to act on it. Just because the opinion comes from a church does NOT mean that the church/state barrier is being broken.
Now, if his minister had told him that he should look into passing some law against that evil science thing where they kill babies, then yes, that would be crossing the line. But when the church as a whole (and him by extension as a member) believe that killing embryos is wrong, no line is being crossed there, he's allowed to have his beliefs just like the people who don't have any problem with it, and he's allowed to act on that belief just as they are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First of all, the United States is neither a dictatorship nor an absolute monarchy. The President is an elected official, beholden to the will of the people. The personal beliefs of the President are therefore moot point.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the President is also obligated to uphold federal law. While the Declaration of Independence, which states that
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,"
is not technically law, Abraham Lincoln's Peoria speech demonstrates why we should not forget the words of the founding fathers: "Little by little, but steadily as man's march to the grave, we have been giving up the old for the new faith. Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a 'sacred right of self-government.' These principles cannot stand together. They are as opposite as God and Mammon; and whoever holds to the one must despise the other."
The topic of Lincoln's day had to do with the assertion that African Americans were people too, and therefore entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and the topic of the rights of human embryos is remarkably similar. Pro-choice advocates tend to concentrate on the rights of women and, while that's all well and good, there is no objective proof to support the claim that human embryos are not human. This is just as much bullshit as the idea that black people are not actually people. In both cases, such views only came about because people knew that what they were doing was wrong and needed a way to excuse their actions. I, for one, do not except rationalizations as explanations.