Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State or Christianity vs Civil Laws Message-ID: Date: 16 Aug 90 16:52:52 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 49 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Well, for what it's worth here is my rambling on church/state relations and the constitution. Note by the way the the term "separation of church and state" *never* appears in the constitution. What it does say is that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exersize thereof." The restriction is on what congress can do, not what religion can do. Clearly the first amendment prohibits laws which require or proscribe religious *belief* but it says nothing about laws prohibiting *actions*. The amendment further specifically protects the right to petition for redress of grievance and does not limit the reasons for the grievance. If the grievance is perceived as a result of religious belief that is irrelevant. In fact since most religions teach that theft and murder are wrong one might claim that laws against them are the result of religious belief. So what? The laws prohibit actions not belief and if a person chooses to believe that murder or robbery are OK, that is quite legal as long as he does not actually rob or kill. In fact he can even teach his beliefs openly with no fear of legal action (at least constitutionally valid legal action). The first amendment protects ideas and the free dissemination thereof. It does nothing to protect actions. When people want to outlaw an action this amendment also does not ask their motivation, only if the proposed legislation deals with actions (which can be regulated) or ideas (which cannot). If I want to outlaw the use of internal combustion engines, for example, the constitution does not care if my motivation is religious, environmental, or just plain selfish. If I can get the law passed it is constitutional. However if I want a law requiring everybody to believe such engines are bad (or prohibiting speech in their favor) then such a law would clearly be unconstitutional. I think the same ideas hold for other less ridiculous laws (and even a few ridiculous ones). They violate the first amendment only insofar as they deal with ideas and the free dissemination of ideas. I see abortion as in the same category with my "internal combustion engine" example. It is an action and actions are not (in my opinion) constitutionally protected. I think that what we have in the abortion issue is 2 sides each unwilling to even consider anything beyond their own dogma. One side says that human life obviously begins at coception and therefore is deserving of protection from that point. The other says that obviously life does not begin until later and therefore the unborn child is not deserving of protection until life outside the womb is viable. I have not noticed either side paying much attention to anything outside their viewpoint.