No Such Thing As Seperation Of Religion And Politics

No such thing as separation of religion and politics
Houston Chronicle ^ | October 26, 2004 | CHARLES J. CHAPUT
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/2866344


DENVER â?? The theologian Karl Barth once said, "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world."

That saying comes to mind as the election approaches and I hear more lectures about how Roman Catholics must not "impose their beliefs on society" or warnings about the need for "the separation of church and state." These are two of the emptiest slogans in current American politics, intended to discourage serious debate. No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. Nor does anyone doubt the importance of morality in public life. Therefore, we should recognize these slogans for what they are: frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound bites.

Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That's the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we "ought" to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody's "ought" becomes a "must" for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it's how pluralism works.

Democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views, confidently and without embarrassment. This give-and-take is an American tradition, and religious believers play a vital role in it. We don't serve our country â?? in fact we weaken it intellectually â?? if we downplay our principles or fail to speak forcefully out of some misguided sense of good manners.

People who support permissive abortion laws have no qualms about imposing their views on society. Often working against popular opinion, they have tried to block any effort to change permissive laws since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. That's fair. That's their right. But why should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who oppose those laws?

Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the dignity of every person. We see abortion as a matter of civil rights and human dignity, not simply as a matter of religious teaching. We are doubly unfaithful â?? both to our religious convictions and to our democratic responsibilities â?? if we fail to support the right to life of the unborn child. Our duties to social justice by no means end there. But they do always begin there, because the right to life is foundational.

For Catholics to take a "pro-choice" view toward abortion contradicts our identity and makes us complicit in how the choice plays out. The "choice" in abortion always involves the choice to end the life of an unborn human being. For anyone who sees this fact clearly, neutrality, silence or private disapproval are not options. They are evils almost as grave as abortion itself. If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice.

The civil order has its own sphere of responsibility, and its own proper autonomy, apart from the church or any other religious community. But civil authorities are never exempt from moral engagement and criticism, either from the church or its members. The founders themselves realized this.

The founders sought to prevent the establishment of an official state church. Given America's history of anti-Catholic nativism, Catholics strongly support the Constitution's approach to religious freedom. But the Constitution does not, nor was it ever intended to, prohibit people or communities of faith from playing an active role in public life. Exiling religion from civic debate separates government from morality and citizens from their consciences. That road leads to politics without character, now a national epidemic.

Words are cheap. Actions matter. If we believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, we need to prove that by our actions, including our political choices. Anything less leads to the corruption of our integrity. Patriotism, which is a virtue for people of all faiths, requires that we fight, ethically and nonviolently, for what we believe. Claiming that "we don't want to impose our beliefs on society" is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible.

As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted in the final presidential debate, "Faith without works is dead." It is a valid point. People should act on what they claim to believe. (snip) excerpted..read more @ http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/2866344

Chaput is the archbishop of Denver

hmm.
yeah.
ok.
processing...
i think yr right. there will be no separation. it goes againt our nature.

abortion is a fiddly one.
both parties have rights.
unborns dont make as much noise though, especially when theyre excecuted.
ive got a foot in both camps there.
imotep straddles the fence.

I agree that religion necessarily influences one's morality (and in many ways defines it) and therefore complete separation of religious belief and state is to a degree impossible. However, the importance is to legislate with morals in mind and not religious dogmas- it makes sense to legislate against theft, murder, etc. but conversely, there should not be a law that people must go to church, take communion, read the Bible, etc. The point is that certain religious moral beliefs are socially beneficial and regarded as such by a majority of the society, but this does not mean that ALL the beleifs of a certain religion are right for ALL of society. THAT is the point of pluralism.
The comments about abortion seem to have missed the point. A pro-choice view does not FORCE people to get abortions, that is a choice left up to the individual. On the other hand, a pro-life view FORCES, for example, a raped woman to bear the resulting child. The choice would then be out of the individual's hands and made by the state, impinging on personal sovreignty. The only way that the state can make a moral claim in this way is to guarantee that the life that results is wothwhile. If abortion is illegalized and we end up with a bunch of babies in dumpsters, will that make society better? Of course there is the adoption alternative, but I have heard painfully few happy accounts of children placed in foster care or orphanages. The state does not have the means or the ability to ensure the safety and well-being of the amount of unwanted/uncared for children that already exist, and the numbers will only go up with the illegalization of abortion. I'm not saying that it is currently the RESPONSIBILITY of the state to care for these children, BUT if a state decree based on a moral claim is what results in the birth of unwanted children, then the state has taken on the moral responsibility for those children, and must then be prepared to care for them in a way which is morally defensible. The funny thing is that Republicans would be against exactly this kind of welfare-state scenario.
To quote the Great Moron "It's a mixed message."

Peace