Freedom and protection of individual rights are synonymous. So if a political process results in individual right violations, this process does not belong to a free society. If, for example, a society takes a vote on the proposition that every redhead should have his property confiscated, and the majority wins, that is no freedom even though the election was "free".
Exercise of religion is one such right. It includes public acts, -- such as prayers, pageants, and erection of monuments, as well as private acts. The government has an obligation to protect religion in both the public and private sphere, or this government oppresses freedom.
Moreover, religion is a public asset. Not just freedom of conscience, but the entire spiritual and cultural heritage is an asset. The government has an obligation to preserve this asset, just like it has an obligation to preserve mineral or esthetic assets of a country. If religion is impoverished through government decree, then that government committed a theft of public treasure and does not stand for freedom.
Some institutions of free society, -- primarily marriage and educational institutions, -- are built on top of religion and are likewise national assets. A government that drives religion out of the classroom, permits no-fault divorce on demand, or encourages destructive behavior by inventing constructs like gay "marriage", -- is a government guilty of theft.
I understand that minority religions, and irreligion, have rights as well. A healthy society finds ways for dominant culture to co-exist with minority culture, typically, through local self-government. Needless to say, the West has been moving in the exactly opposite direction, toward destruction of dominant religious and cultural heritage and toward centralization around the least common denominator principle.
Heresies of the early Church and of the Middle Ages were insurgencies that threatened the social fabric. They were a close equivalent of threats to secular order that we are familiar today, such as fascism or communism, and we did not hesitate to fight those. Recall that at that time the social fabric was the religious fabric. The anabaptists in Muenster (I think) murdered and drove out everyone who disagreed with them, and confiscated private property. The false converts to Christianity in Spain were a real threat to a country that just went though a religious civil war to drive the Muslim out. This is not to justify every prosecution of every heretic, -- some clearly were abuse of power, but one needs to see those things in their historical perspective.
Separation of church and state has become a code word for destruction of religion in the public space. But when one resists that, the argument immediately goes to the bogeyman of Islamic theocracy. In fact, Christianity in the West scarcely had a period even remotely resembling a monolythical theocracy. The Roman Empire following Constantine managed to peacefully accomodate a pagan majority. The early medieval kings were completely independent from the Church, even those that were Christian. When they insisted on appointing bishops, -- a clear power grab by the secular medieval state, -- the Investiture Controversy ensued and Gregory VII was able to restore balance. When Aquinas defined the separation of church and state by function, -- one cares for the souls, the other for the public good, -- he had nearly a millenium of tension and balance to look at in European historical experience. The Establishment clause in the US Constitution is a late comer to the controversy, did not draw on a comparable breadth of historical experience, and by now has been completely emasciated of all meaning.
The Church had tepid support for the Bourbons as the only legitimate government France had at the time. It most certainly did not recognize the Jacobins that slaughtered clergy by the thousands. Napoleon probably got credit for getting rid of the Jacobins, but his reign was not viewed as legitimate except under duress.
I am sure poison gas can cause a terrible injury, and so can any other weapon. But as long as it is used against combatants, there is no moral reason to single it out for opprobium.
Not so. Anarchy represents absolute freedom from government, but in no way protects the rights of individuals.
So if a political process results in individual right violations, this process does not belong to a free society. If, for example, a society takes a vote on the proposition that every redhead should have his property confiscated, and the majority wins, that is no freedom even though the election was "free".
I could not agree more, which is what I said in my last post. But in protecting the rights of individuals and more importantly minority groups, the governmental authority will have to recognize that such groups likely see God in very different ways. That also is freedom...the freedom to think.
Exercise of religion is one such right. It includes public acts, -- such as prayers, pageants, and erection of monuments, as well as private acts. The government has an obligation to protect religion in both the public and private sphere, or this government oppresses freedom.
I agree. But that includes any and all religions that do not infringe on individual rights. But if you're going where I think you are, then you are suggesting the active participation of government in this "religious freedom". Here I draw the line. It is government's responsibility to create a climate not only of religious freedom, but of religious tolerance. It must protect these freedoms while not actively participating or encouraging their advancement.
Moreover, religion is a public asset. Not just freedom of conscience, but the entire spiritual and cultural heritage is an asset. The government has an obligation to preserve this asset, just like it has an obligation to preserve mineral or esthetic assets of a country. If religion is impoverished through government decree, then that government committed a theft of public treasure and does not stand for freedom.
Religious freedom is a public asset, but religion itself belongs to the individual and his own conscience. I agree that our culture has a strong Judeo-Christian base, and we have earlier discussed the founders' religious beliefs. But when you talk of government preserving religion as an asset, you are no doubt only considering Christianity I'm sure. If so, then you are espousing an active governmental participation in the advancement of Christianity. And if so, then that government is trampling on the individual rights of those who do not share that belief. Government has then recast the word "freedom" to mean something it was never intended to be.
Some institutions of free society, -- primarily marriage and educational institutions, -- are built on top of religion and are likewise national assets.
I agree that the concept of marriage was religiously based, but I do not understand the religious aspect of education. If you are saying that Christianity must be taught in public schools then of course I reject that in its entirety. If you are saying that schools should permit religious freedom, then I agree (guardedly).
A government that drives religion out of the classroom, permits no-fault divorce on demand, or encourages destructive behavior by inventing constructs like gay "marriage", -- is a government guilty of theft.
Permitting students to have time to pray or reflect is a good thing in a public school. Permitting a student to refer to God in a paper is a good thing. Teaching Christianity in a public school in any context other than as a survey of world religions is a bad thing. Unless of course you would also countenance the teaching of Islam. When a state government permits liberal divorces or gay marriage then it's because the people of that state permit it through their elected legislators. You or I don't have to like it, but clearly the word "theft" does not come to mind. If the people don't like such social goals as those, then use the constitutional processes they have in that state and change it. I think the word "freedom" means something quite different for you and I. You seem to countenance freedom only if an action meets your specific religious ethic, or an action that does not conflict with your view of our culture. Freedom to me means the ability to redefine culture. I may not like the change, and probably do not, but without that ability, freedom is simply a meaningless word.
I understand that minority religions, and irreligion, have rights as well. A healthy society finds ways for dominant culture to co-exist with minority culture, typically, through local self-government. Needless to say, the West has been moving in the exactly opposite direction, toward destruction of dominant religious and cultural heritage and toward centralization around the least common denominator principle.
If in a free society a religion can only exist with the active aid of the government, then what does that say about the religion? Perhaps the dominant religion needs to reconsider its position with respect to the people, not the government. If the people still want that dominant religion, then government's responsibility is to ensure only that no institution prevent the will of the people. Government has no responsibility or even right to actively assist the people. The government must protect those minority rights as well as those of the dominant religion. It can only accomplish that by remaining neutral and letting the people make the choices.
Heresies of the early Church and of the Middle Ages were insurgencies that threatened the social fabric. They were a close equivalent of threats to secular order that we are familiar today, such as fascism or communism, and we did not hesitate to fight those.
A heresy was a crime of thought. If you have no right to think what you will, then you have no freedom. Yes, religion was the social fabric, but no less a tyranny than any other in history. Did the people have the right to change the "government" by civil means? Did people have the right to think what they would without repercussions? The concept of justice was sorely lacking in these "societies" and without justice you have no true society. You have only groups of people controlled by institutions, not institutions controlled by the people.
Separation of church and state has become a code word for destruction of religion in the public space. But when one resists that, the argument immediately goes to the bogeyman of Islamic theocracy. In fact, Christianity in the West scarcely had a period even remotely resembling a monolythical theocracy.
A couple of points. You told me yourself that you preferred a Catholic theocratic government over the one we currently have. Why would that be any different? Separation of church and state is so important to us here because of the history we have discussed. Yes we have gone overboard, but it's people like judge Moore who force these issues. Government should not exclude religion but should not promote it either. Simple but certainly not settled.
The Establishment clause in the US Constitution is a late comer to the controversy, did not draw on a comparable breadth of historical experience, and by now has been completely emasciated of all meaning.
True, the clause came from the 17th and 18th century English experience, which was enough for the founders. As to the meaning, we have discussed this also before and one must look to the Federalist Papers to see much more on religion, including if you recall the concept of religious tests for government officers.
I am sure poison gas can cause a terrible injury, and so can any other weapon. But as long as it is used against combatants, there is no moral reason to single it out for opprobium.
Your footing here seems to be less sure than on religious ground. You may want to look at the history of chemical warfare and the reasons for the conventions outlawing its use.