(no subject)

[nohanii]

"Separation of church and state" is apparently a one-way street. I am so tired of churches screaming foul and making a bunch of noise when there's even the slightest hint -- however factual, exaggerated, or just plain made up -- that "their rights" as a religious organization might be infringed upon(1), then turning around and pushing crap legislation through Congress(2).

Let me get this straight: The government cannot interfere with churches one way or the other, but churches (especially of the Catholic denomination) can interfere with the government all they want? I'm not a religious person in any sense of that word. That said, I am a moral person. I believe in being the best person I can be for the sake of bettering myself and the world around me, not in hopes of getting into heaven or avoiding hellfire. I am generous with my time: I volunteered at the Orange County Zoo until my financial situation forbade the commute, and I am now looking into volunteering at a local animal shelter. I donate to causes: I donate goods to Good Will, food to food banks, and money to organizations. I am a nice, good person. I don't steal things or abuse others. I try my darndest to treat everyone I meet with love and respect. I think I'm doing pretty well for myself and I would appreciate it very much if the church would stop sticking its nose in my business. I am not in a position to take care of a baby at this point, let alone a pregnant me. I have no job, no healthcare, and I can barely pay my rent and utilities every month. There is absolutely no way I could afford all the prenatal care that is "required" nowadays, let alone hospital bills and food, clothes, and toys for a baby. I do everything within my power, short of abstinence, to make sure I won't get pregnant, but if I do, an abortion would be far less costly than everything I just mentioned. I wouldn't enjoy it, but I'd probably say bye-bye to the fetus. Sorry, but that's the reality. I don't need these holier-than-thou types blocking access to what would be pretty much a necessary procedure.

Churches, whether Catholic, Christian, Mormon, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindi, Shinto, Taoist, Wiccan or whathaveyou, do not have a place in making that decision for the masses. Their place lies in mentoring their congregation and guiding them to pick the "right" choice. But no, they're working to take away that choice altogether, and that's not right.

I conclusion, LEAVE YOUR BIBLE OUT OF MY UTERUS.

(1) Most recently, I'm referring to the Prop 8 versus Church fiasco, where churches (most notably Mormon) claimed that they would lose some rights or government funding or some such nonsense if gays were allowed to marry under the law but the church refused to perform the service.
(2) The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops played a large role in forcing the anti-choice abortion Stupak Amendment in the House and released a letter to senators Monday urging passage of Nelson's anti-choice abortion amendment, contending that without it, the bill "violates this moral principle" against federal funding of elective abortions. (Abortion emerges as obstacle in health care debate)

Comments

[pie-is-good.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: This rant is not really directed at you. I am bored. 'Separation of Church and State' is a pet peeve of mine.

Okay, I hate the term separation of church and state. For one, that's not even the proper term - in its original origins, it was a "wall of separation between church and state" from Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

In its origins, it was never meant to do anything but describe the first amendment (establishment and free exercise clauses) which only says what Jefferson quoted above. It has nothing to do with the church not interfering in State affairs. I would say his metaphor had much more to do with the church being protected from the state.

And in ways, the state really shouldn't be protected from influence of churches. Yes, that sounds awful. Especially coming from someone who is as liberal as I am! (Which is pretty liberal...:) But think about it - our country is supposed to be run by the people. But not too much. It was designed with the people to have power to elect people to make decisions for them. It's been altered in a variety of ways, but that's still the basic idea. Churches speak for the opinions of the many just as other interest groups do. They shouldn't be any more or less involved in it than any other group that is active in fighting for a cause they believe in.

If you have an issue with interest groups and lobbying and all of that sort of stuff, that's a completely separate issue. But it should be either all or nothing, you know? Not just churches should get denied that way of fighting for their beliefs.

However, what I DO think is stupid is the way that our country has been putting things like same-sex marriage and abortion and who knows what else to a popular vote. If we'd done that with other social change in the past, like women's suffrage or interracial marriage, we never would have gotten anywhere. The Framers carefully constructed the Constitution to ensure that the people got power, but not too much. With good reason. Pure democracy gets society nowhere.

We need politicians who we elected to represent us to do what's right. Some day they will. But it shouldn't be by trying to make groups that have every right to speak out and work for or against a cause from doing so. That's not America. Good or bad, everyone gets to speak.


This rant brought to you by my useless political science degree with an emphasis in political philosophy. I agree that the churches are fucktards a lot of the time, though many of them have also done lots of good, and I don't understand how abortion could ever be completely illegal or how anyone can think that people shouldn't be allowed to marry whoever the fuck they want.

But I strongly believe in the way this country is designed. :)

Sorry for this, haha. It's 3 am, and I can't sleep. I hope it doesn't seem like any kind of attack on you! Not intended that way at alllllll. I think I just miss college.

[kitrona.livejournal.com]

In theory, churches speak for the opinions of their congregations. I don't believe for a minute that all of the church leaders speak for their congregation any more than I believe the state and federal representatives speak for their constituents. It's incredibly rare to find someone who is willing to put their own opinions and beliefs aside if the people they speak for have different opinions and beliefs.

Ironically, it seems that now the government needs protection from the church, as the loudest and thus the most heard church people seem to think that it's wrong that they should have to tolerate things they don't agree with, but they have no problem trying to force everyone who doesn't believe what they do... to believe what they do, or at least act like it. It's the hypocrisy in these so-called "pillars of the community" that really turns my stomach.

The government was designed for a situation that was radically different from the way things are today. I still think it's the best we've got, but it's important to recognize that it's still deeply flawed, most notably in that it doesn't take into account how deeply (and probably unconsciously!) selfish individual humans are, as a matter of human nature.

I don't have a degree, so these are just my logics working. :P

[pie-is-good.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but the government has to be run by individual humans. There's no way around that. And no, they don't speak for everyone, and they can't - but not everyone can speak for themselves. They do represent the opinions of plenty of people. Trust me, I went canvassing for democrats in a lot of rural areas. I heard it all. Abortion especially - some of them wouldn't even talk to me once they learned that my candidate was pro-choice.

Again, I don't think the government needs protection from the church anymore than it needs protection from other groups that are trying to push legislation. It's a Constitutional protected right to be able to speak your mind to your legislature and the media and where ever else you want to. If there's a problem with the Church, you have to have a problem with other groups as well because it's the same right. You can't (and shouldn't) pick and choose in the US. It'd be if like when I worked in the Congressman's office, I only inputted the calls I received from people who agreed with my opinions. I would have had to ignored 1000+ letters from a pro-life group.

And yes, it was designed in a time radically different than today. We've made lots of changes to make it better. It's not perfect. We've given the people more power than they initially had, for example. I think it does take into account how selfish humans are. If you actually read notes from the Constitutional Convention, they don't particularly have a high opinion of the masses. And they shouldn't. As a group, masses are terrible. They are far more selfish than an individual they elected are. No, I don't think politicians are all sunshine and daises and I'm frustrated at how little they do, but there's no other way to do it. It's either some form of representative government or some kind of tyranny, and they do a better job than anything closer to a pure democracy does.

But honestly, it hardly matters in the case of something like abortion. Social issues are - most likely - going to be handled by the Supreme Court. Interracial marriage was made legal when it was still not the popular opinion, abortion was as well. The Supreme Court was incredibly well designed, giving them life terms and appointment rather than election to be protect them from the same kinds of influence that the legislature faces. Of course they aren't solely concerned with the Constitution and have their own agenda. They're human. But they were the ones that made interracial marriage legal, they were the ones that handed down the opinion in Roe v. Wade.

Soooo yes. I still have faith in the way the country was designed. I respect that an incredible amount.

(I can talk about this all day….>.> Love this stuff. I did my honors thesis on the Electoral College and its historical and current relevance.)

[kitrona.livejournal.com]

Just a minor nitpick, and I know it's hard to get this across in a piece like this, but there was a substantial chunk of the Mormon church that was completely against the way the rest of the church interfered in Prop 8.

Other than that... yeah, preach in your pulpit, not in Congress.

[honeystix.livejournal.com]

I realize that. One of my best friends was in that "chunk" and he tried his darndest to sway others to his position. He said his church was acting directly against teachings in the Book of Mormon and found passages to support his stance and everything. I'm just saying that the Mormon church involved itself in politics, not necessarily all the people that make up the congregation. I can see where that could get fuzzy, though.

it's the same way with many other churches, too. Oftentimes it's the religious organization that interferes even though many of its adherents would prefer it didn't. There are several religious senators how "leave the Bible outside" when they enter Congress. That's how it should be.

[kitrona.livejournal.com]

Yes. This.

One of my best friends is Mormon and was very angry with the church leaders. And this goes back to how the leaders supposedly speak for the congregation, but how can they if the leaders don't listen?

[honeystix.livejournal.com]

In my estimation, church leaders speak for their church, not their congregation. I've never heard of a bishop who actually sat down and listened to what his "flock" had to say and then fight for that -- all I hear is THE BIBLE SAID.

[roie.livejournal.com]

...and this is why I don't believe in organized religion.

[honeystix.livejournal.com]

YES. They try to tightly regulate their congregations and don't think twice about spilling over to populations that have not asked for their "guidance." I really believe that the church's (and church, mosque, temple, whatever) purpose is to act as a moral compass through advice NOT laws enacted that affect everyone regardless of religious affiliation.