Church and State

A good discussion about the 'separation of church and state' can be found here. Though the constitution says the government may not interfere with religious practice, clearly the government does when practice clashes with civil law, in the case of polygamy and use of illegal drugs in religious practice, to name two examples. It's important to understand what the amendment actually says about the relationship between government and religion.

I was reminded that the amendment actually does not use the words "separation between church and state," and that these words were used later by President Jefferson in an 1802 letter he wrote to discuss the intent of the constitutional language in the first amendment.

In the 1950's the words "under God" were placed in the US Pledge of Allegiance.  Clearly this ascribes a belief in a higher being and is endorsed by the government.  So what about those who do not believe in any kind of higher being?  This is not the government endorsing any particular religion, but it is endorsing a belief in God.  

God is invoked in the oath of office, in the swearing in of jurors, on our currency.  Clearly, this is a government that, while establishing no official religion, sets by example that a belief in God is essential to a moral life.

Many of us believe differently; believe that a moral life can easily be led by the belief that a moral life is a good life and produces positive outcomes instead of negative ones.

Romney's discussion about the separation of church and state in public life is not an anomaly.  Many people of many belief systems share his opinion.  Even people who are not overtly religious have grown up in a Judeo-Christian country and are used to hearing the name of God invoked.  It bothers me more as I get older -- I don't believe in what most people mean when they say "God."  When it is spoken of in the public square or in political discussions, it makes me nervous and it makes me feel as if I am 'lesser than' because I don't believe.  Could an agnostic successfully run for high political office in this country, much less an atheist?  I don't think so.

But getting back to the constitution, namely the first amendment, I think it provides a lot more leeway for religious involvement in public life (which can include political life) than I previously did.  Should it?  I don't think so.  I'd like stronger words such as "separation of church and state" to be articulated.  But that would take a constitutional amendment. 

The Five Precepts and Organized Religion

Thanks to Peter for a stimulating post. His link to "The Healing Power of the Precepts" is also most welcomed. While I admire and understand (to the best of my limited ability) the precepts, I am just a piss-poor (or glorious?) Buddhist wannabe. Never. Gonna. Get. There.

I'm glad that there are many practicing Buddhists, just as I am glad there are many practicing Christians, Jew, Muslims (name your organized religion). If they are trying to walk the true path of their beliefs, they are doing good work in the world. While I may not share their beliefs, I cannot deny the good that comes from them. That there are some in this world who twist their beliefs into monstrous and evil deeds (this is true of all faiths) does not diminish the faithful who practice love, understanding and compassion.

That's one reason I can't get worked-up about the plans to build a mosque near ground-zero in New York. My initial gut reaction was outrage, but then I did a bit of research and learned that the proposal has its merits. If we allow Islamic terrorists to distort our understanding of Islam, that is a great pity. Perhaps a mosque in this location will help heal the wounds, if people would just let it be. There is enough hate and discord in the world. Can we welcome an effort to promote understanding?