Some Ideas Are More Equal Than Others
By Adam Graham (02/18/05)
The principle of the Separation of Church and State has been trumpeted by many politicians as the that impenetrable wall that must separate religious principles from the government in order to guarantee religious liberty for all. This is used in many cases to convince Conservative Christians they have no business trying to force Christian ethics on society.
Certainly, most people would agree w that the state should not run the church, or vice versa. No one would support making mere denominational doctrines the law of the land. However, our current separation regime has attempted to stifle the opinions of people of faith in violation of basic principles of fairness.
Where Ideas Come From
People get their political thoughts from a variety of sources. Some will form their political opinions from their life experience, while others will follow the lead of parents and teachers, and still others will be influenced by books or the popular culture.
According to the Separationists, the following are valid reasons for backing public policy positions:
1) You were laid off from your job and support the banning of all outsourcing.
2) Your parents taught you that the poor should be taken care of, so Medicaid should be expanded into free health care for all.
3) After reading The Communist Manifesto you feel the rich should have to pay more taxes.
4) When you watch, Million Dollar Baby, you come to the conclusion that Euthanasia should be allowed for the disabled.
Invalid reasons for public policy decisions are:
1)Prayer gave you hope growing up as a child and you feel that the acknowledgement of God at the beginning of the school day would provide hope for some children.
2)Your parents taught you gambling was wrong, so you oppose the lottery.
3) After reading a book by a Christian author, you become persuaded the government should provide school vouchers so kids can choose the education they want.
4) After watching The Hard Truth (a graphic depiction of abortions with prophetic music playing in the background), you come to the conclusion abortion should be banned.
Thus the separation crowd has our government make a series of value judgments about whats a valid basis for government policy. The words of Marx can be the basis of government policy, but not the words of Christ.
Brian Hines of Church to the Churchless challenges the equality of ideas as argued by a UCLA professor, writing, Politics deals with observable physical reality where people bodily live, breathe, and die. Religion deals with an unobservable immaterial realm where, maybe, the souls of people go after they die Opinions can, and should, be founded on objective facts derived from social science and medical science research. There are costs and benefits to various individuals and society as a whole from the presence or absence of abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. These costs and benefits can be determined. They can be communicated. They can be discussed. They can be the basis for informed political decisions.
Theres an old saying, Figures dont lie, but liars figure. Social Scientists are particularly unreliable sources. Most have a set of suppositions that will color their research. Thus, Conservatives will have one study showing the detrimental psychological effects of abortion while the pro-abortion American Psychological Association will swear up and down that its not true. To believe you can resolve political issues to the same certainty of gravity or other natural laws is absurd on its face.
Also, interpreting data is not a logical process. Mr. Hines gave fetal pain as an example of something we could measure and make a judgment on as to when abortion should be allowed. However, measuring fetal pain doesnt really solve the abortion issue, because at the end of the day, the pro-abortion side will say, So what? no matter how much pain the unborn child might experience.
At the end of the day, all the analysis in the world just gives us data, but our values determine how we respond to the data. To say that religiously influenced viewpoints have no place in public life shows pure arrogance on the part of todays secularists zealots who have become the very thing they claim to eschew: narrow-minded intolerant bigots who seek to deprive their fellow citizens of basic rights.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/6869
By Adam Graham (02/18/05)
The principle of the Separation of Church and State has been trumpeted by many politicians as the that impenetrable wall that must separate religious principles from the government in order to guarantee religious liberty for all. This is used in many cases to convince Conservative Christians they have no business trying to force Christian ethics on society.
Certainly, most people would agree w that the state should not run the church, or vice versa. No one would support making mere denominational doctrines the law of the land. However, our current separation regime has attempted to stifle the opinions of people of faith in violation of basic principles of fairness.
Where Ideas Come From
People get their political thoughts from a variety of sources. Some will form their political opinions from their life experience, while others will follow the lead of parents and teachers, and still others will be influenced by books or the popular culture.
According to the Separationists, the following are valid reasons for backing public policy positions:
1) You were laid off from your job and support the banning of all outsourcing.
2) Your parents taught you that the poor should be taken care of, so Medicaid should be expanded into free health care for all.
3) After reading The Communist Manifesto you feel the rich should have to pay more taxes.
4) When you watch, Million Dollar Baby, you come to the conclusion that Euthanasia should be allowed for the disabled.
Invalid reasons for public policy decisions are:
1)Prayer gave you hope growing up as a child and you feel that the acknowledgement of God at the beginning of the school day would provide hope for some children.
2)Your parents taught you gambling was wrong, so you oppose the lottery.
3) After reading a book by a Christian author, you become persuaded the government should provide school vouchers so kids can choose the education they want.
4) After watching The Hard Truth (a graphic depiction of abortions with prophetic music playing in the background), you come to the conclusion abortion should be banned.
Thus the separation crowd has our government make a series of value judgments about whats a valid basis for government policy. The words of Marx can be the basis of government policy, but not the words of Christ.
Brian Hines of Church to the Churchless challenges the equality of ideas as argued by a UCLA professor, writing, Politics deals with observable physical reality where people bodily live, breathe, and die. Religion deals with an unobservable immaterial realm where, maybe, the souls of people go after they die Opinions can, and should, be founded on objective facts derived from social science and medical science research. There are costs and benefits to various individuals and society as a whole from the presence or absence of abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. These costs and benefits can be determined. They can be communicated. They can be discussed. They can be the basis for informed political decisions.
Theres an old saying, Figures dont lie, but liars figure. Social Scientists are particularly unreliable sources. Most have a set of suppositions that will color their research. Thus, Conservatives will have one study showing the detrimental psychological effects of abortion while the pro-abortion American Psychological Association will swear up and down that its not true. To believe you can resolve political issues to the same certainty of gravity or other natural laws is absurd on its face.
Also, interpreting data is not a logical process. Mr. Hines gave fetal pain as an example of something we could measure and make a judgment on as to when abortion should be allowed. However, measuring fetal pain doesnt really solve the abortion issue, because at the end of the day, the pro-abortion side will say, So what? no matter how much pain the unborn child might experience.
At the end of the day, all the analysis in the world just gives us data, but our values determine how we respond to the data. To say that religiously influenced viewpoints have no place in public life shows pure arrogance on the part of todays secularists zealots who have become the very thing they claim to eschew: narrow-minded intolerant bigots who seek to deprive their fellow citizens of basic rights.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/6869
