Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Daniel Crowe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State (mostly regarding abortion) Message-ID: Date: 12 Aug 90 06:03:21 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility Lines: 55 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article garth!dbarnes@unix.sri.com (Dave Barnes) writes: >Actually the issue is not with abortion per se, but with the greater >issue of being a Christian and believing God's laws have sovereignty over >the laws of man when there is conflict between the two. As an American >we are to respect others' views, and our religious views are not to be >mandated for everyone. But what if others' views are in opposition to >God's views (as we interpret them) on certain issues? [material deleted] >This is where I get into conflict. If God is real, I mean, not just >a concept or a vague force, but a personal being with definite views >and commands for his people, then what a Christian thinks God says is >more legitimate and of greater value than anything that the citizens >of the U.S. think. I would like to discuss two related issues in response to Dave's posting: the first deals with the development of US law and the role of the US citizenry in that development; the second deals with the relationship of Christians to US law. The first amendment to the US constitution contains the famous "seperation of church and state" clause. Unless one proposes repealing that clause from the constitution, the development of law based upon sectarian doctrine is unconstitutional. That is not to say that laws may not have anything to do with religion, because religion involves itself in all spheres of human activity. If anyone with a religious conviction on a given law were barred from involvement in the political process with regards to that law, most of the religiously active US citizens would be excluded from the political arena. I do not believe that this was the intention of the framers of the constitution. Dave's expressed reasons for opposing abortion involve only sectarian Christian doctrines and should therefore be excluded from the political process of the development of US law. I happen to agree with Dave's position on abortion as stated, including the religious conviction, but I also incorporate scientific reasoning in my position and use the scientific reasoning in the political arena, not sectarian religious reasoning. Just as a point of clarification, the immorality of murder (as currently defined) is a nonsectarian religious doctrine, whereas the immorality of abortion is a sectarian religious doctrine since there is not a general consensus among religious sects. Although sectarian religious beliefs are excluded from the development of US law, an individual may choose to violate the law if he/she believes that the law is in violation of the expressed will of God. Such an action is illegal, and he/she will have to accept the legal consequences. He/she may feel that the immediate consequences are acceptable in view of ultimate consequences, but that is between him/her and God. -- Daniel (God is my judge) | "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to physics graduate student | speak and slow to become angry, for man's City College of New York | anger does not bring about the righteous crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu | life that God desires." (James 1:19-20,NIV)