conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

living @ the intersection redux (warning: long post, no editor)

Thanks to all who have participated in this conversation. If you have not had a chance to read the comments. Take a gander. There is some good stuff.

I want to reframe my comments a little bit. I think that there is a separation to be certain, and there should be. I wonder, however, if that separation is more about purpose than it is about belief. It certainly can be the latter, but if as a Christian I want to separate the two, church and state, and both are ordained by God (Romans 13), then the difference must be about the purpose of the institutions...or is it?

Let's be honest.

Much of this country began as a Christian ghetto with no intention to integrate ecclesial neighborhoods or school districts.

David W. states rightly that the trouble with not having the separation is that we can have a duely elected Taliban. Think about the situation in Iran. This may be one more democratically elected terrorist leader. This is terrible to consider as possible in our country. And our current political climate has given some the impression that it is indeed possible here and may, in some eyes, have already happened. The far Religious Left or Religious Right will push their agendas through election and committee. If that is their desire, and their understanding of American democratic process and ideology, then David W. is right in in his fears.

As a Christian, I want to lean a little on Paul and say that the notion of the separation within the Constitution (implicit or explicit, Dr. Mike) is God's work to avoid the trap that David W. suggests exists. We do not need a Democratic Theocracy. The freedom to practice faith as dictated by a variety of traditions, the freedom to not practice (Sunni), and the freedom to allow a faith to influence one's politidal life are all protected by the Constitution. Clearly, this is a simple notion that is complicated to employ.

The purpose of a government is to fence us in so that a "common good" is established. Our American system is inherently relativist. It has to be. The purpose of a faith tradition, on the other hand, is not relativist except perhaps within its own much more narrow framework.

Once upon a time in this country, the purpose of the government and its relationship to established Christian traditions was more explicit. Let's be honest. Much of this country began as a Christian ghetto with no intention to integrate ecclesial neighborhoods or school districts. Only after it became clear that some kind of political, and thus religious, integration was necessary did the separation of church and state come about. This was done out of necessity and through the manipulation of political power. In 18th century New England this was especially true.

The state constitution of Massachusetts adopted in 1780 endorsed the practice of legagal jurisdictions to lay taxes to support existing religious groups (read: European Protestantism). No one denimination was to benefit more than another. This is an interesting historical tidbit because it demonstrates another way that government has attempted to secure the religious freedom of its citizens.

Patrick Henry supported this practice and debated hotly with Thomas Jefferson over how government should protect religious freedom. Jefferson won the debate. In 1785, Virginia abolished a tax-supported system of religious freedom. In New England, it was not until the early 1800's (1820's?) that this system was demolished. I think that we are still debatinng this very idea but through such issues like stem-cell research and federal funding of faith-based initiatives.

The frightening piece centers around the use or misuse of political power. We have a representative democracy. The elected official, as I understand it, is to represent all he constituents, not just the oens who elected her. To suggest otherwise is the flipside to my saying that W is not my President.

Larry's understanding of consensus plays into this. His understanding relies upon compassion ("ensure the general welfare") within government. Sunni rightly suggests that one need not be religious to accomplish this. David W. and others (Welcome, Greek Shadow.) fear that compassion (or perhaps compassion for all) is not possible if faith is instutionalized with the power of the government behind it. This is the problem to be certain.

None the less, as Larry states, "Religious belief and action simply have political consequences." This is an unavoidable truth if people of faith are to have integrity. David W.'s polemic is important to remember, however, as we do not necessarily want to fall back into the habit of funding the salaries of harvard educated Congregationalist ministers.

So, finally, here is another question or six: What do we do with Larry's statement knowing, as Sunni rightly suggests, not everyone relies upon a religious convicition to guide political conscience, and, as Dr Mike suggests, even within Christian circles there is great diversity of opinion? How do we live with Larry's description of reality? Personally, I want to vote in a way that reflects my faith. In fact, I always do. And I do so while maintaining that the purpose of government is to govern and not to evangelize. I do not agree that to give to Ceasar what is his means that I must divide myself. Instead it means that I must play by the rules. I also believe that in this country we simply do not agree on the ruls and perhaps never have.

Your thoughts?

Posted by tripp at July 1, 2005 09:07 AM