Reply #70: Dissenting [View All]

[Jack Rabbit]

As a freethinker, I would never be so presumptuous as to tell a Christian what Christianity is. Of course, any Christian who tells another what it is may be equally presumptuous, especially if the issue is a narrow interpretation of doctrine that may be open to dispute.

It is not the state's business to save souls. It is not the state's business to interpret anyone's religious dogma or doctrine.

The issues are religious liberty and the separation of church and state. Exactly what do they mean?

The Constitution mentions religion twice. One is in Article 6 of the main body:

(N)o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The other is in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof(.)

The clause from Article 6 means that being a Baptist makes one no more nor less qualified to hold public office than one who is a Catholic, a Buddhist or an atheist. No one can prevent an individual from voting for only candidates of a certain religious persuasion if that person believes that only Methodists or Presbyterians should hold public office; but if such a person were to bring suit to prevent a Jew or a Muslim from taking office to which he has been duly elected or appointed for no other reason than his faith, then that person would be laughed out of court.

The First Amendment's reference is a compound sentence. The second part means that the federal government cannot outlaw the practice of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, any sect of Christianity or any other religious teaching. Nor can it compel any individual to attend or otherwise support any church if he doesn't want to for any reason.

The first sentence means that the neither Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church of America, the Roman Catholic Church nor the San Francisco Zen Center is going to be made the official state church of America. There isn't going to be an official state church of America in the same way the Anglican Church is the official church of England, the Lutheran Church the official church of most Scandinavian states or the Roman Catholic Church is the official church of several southern European and Latin American nations.

It also means that a judge who, in reaching a decision, invokes Biblical teaching (i.e., his personal interpretation of it) and trumpets that above or even equal to written legislation and prior legal opinions is more guilty of judicial activism and legislating from the bench than any of those who had the Schiavo case brought before them. That would indeed be judicial tyranny. Yet that is exactly what Tom DeLay, Seantor Frist and some members of Congress want. And we must oppose them.