The whole issue of the separation of church and state is an interesting one. The problem is that few people actually have strong enough views on either side of the argument to apply the rule they chose to every situation. Phil Baker links to a good article from the Australian by Dennis Shanahan "Heads I win, tails you lose' approach to religion"
The whole article is well worth the read. but here is a short section
"...It seems that it's OK to have God in politics as long as he's on the so-called progressive side. It's fine for Greens leader Bob Brown to campaign for Tibet and the Dalai Lama and against China's persecution of the spiritual movement Falun Gong, but not to start parliamentary business with the Lord's Prayer.
It's fine for Catholic nuns to help refugees on the run or for Catholic justice groups to help West Papuans, but it's not OK for them to attempt to influence politicians on abortion or embryonic stem cell research. A bishop's remarks against industrial relations laws are used widely, but bishops who speak out against abortion are decried as men in dresses who should keep their hands off women's ovaries..."
I am just don't really know how you can separate the church and state. What people place their belief in, is what they are. Their choices will be made under the influence of their heart, mind and soul! If they are Catholic that influences them. If they are Agnostic that influences them, if they are homosexual then that will influence them, if they are evangelical that will influence them. The problem is that they want our opinion when it agrees with them and tell us to shut up when it does not. When will people realise that you can't separate the church and the state! The state is made up of people and people are made up of their life and faith! Oh for the days of Elijah then we could just challenge their God to a duel and it would be plain to see who we should follow!
Hmm...
ReplyDeleteI really don't like the comparison of the Lord's Prayer in parliament and the Greens' campaigning against the persecution of Falun Gong. The latter is seeking even ground for different beliefs, the former is imposing one belief in an area that should be accepting of all. Yes, 'imposing' is a harsh word, but I couldn't think of anything else. It's a Friday after all. And yes, I know it's not your quote.
I don't have a problem with religious groups taking a stance on public issues - but I think they need to keep in mind that the law isn't just for them and their followers, it's for an entire country (in the case of federal politics).
Was there any reason, when repeating the "that will influence them" mantra, you chose homosexuals? It's just that that's the only non-religious 'group'. Just curious.
And I'm going to leave the duelling Gods bit right alone.
PS yes there is an error in the comments page working on it! If you can see the error in the code happy for some advice.
ReplyDeletePAt nice to know you are still reading my opinions. The reference to the Homosexuals is just a throw away reference but it does make the point that every one has a veiw and they take it with them into politics. They are not asked to check their ideas at the door when they enter parliment. When they make laws or influence them they too are making them for the whole country and not just themselves and the small minority they represent. In the end there is no difference in the argument, if they want their voice heard why not a christian?
ReplyDeleteI haven't noticed any errors yet - but I'll keep my eye out.
ReplyDeleteI think the main issue for me is whether the group - any group - enforce their views upon the rest of the country. Everyone should be free to think anything - but forcing other people to act according to a particular group's opinions is not something that should happen.