Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: cdalzell@kean.ucs.mun.ca Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State or Christianity vs Civil Laws Message-ID: Date: 25 Aug 90 01:07:48 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada Lines: 62 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [This continues a discussion on respect for others' views. An analogy is being used of faculty grading students' papers. One person commented that while you may respect your students, that doesn't mean you fail to correct their errors. This raised the question of what happens if two faculty disagree on grading. Who has the authority to decide? --clh] Dear Curious, Well, now you know why we do not have two profs teaching the same course. It's not that simple of course. At my university, a student who is dissatisfied with his grade can petition for a reread, and then his final exam and work for the term is considered by another mathematician. But in the end "the judges' decision is final". Yes, what authority means is the right to make binding decisions for another which may, in practice, be wrong (seen absolutely, in the eyes of God, for instance). But for us mortals, somebody has to call the shots. No matter who is given the authority, there is a possibility of error and misuse. But for that authority to be effective, it must have the power and the right to be binding. This is why the RC church has taught that one is right to obey a command that is false. (This assumes that the one in authority has the right to be in authority). The bad effect due to occasional false commands is less than the anarchy that would result if nobody had any authority at all. I find it fascinating to observe what sort of authorities people will accept. With Math, there is the belief that a concensus can be reached and that correct answers can be shown to be correct. If I grade something badly, chances are that the student can convince me of my error or find another prof who can. There is still the general belief that logic is objective and universal, that there is a generally held body of mathematical truths and that someone who has gone through the system to the point of being a university prof is likely to be right (where a junior course is concerned) and thus is granted the authority of saying "this is all wrong". With ethics, and this is where our political difficulties arise, there is not a concensus in North America any more. We differ over particulars (like abortion and euthanasia) because we differ over essentials ( do I live for myself, or do I live for others, for the community, for God? Who owns my body?). It has always been said that a nation requires one (and only one) religion to thrive and to be governable at all. Those who rule the public debate (the media et al.) seem to think that a nation can be grounded upon the twin pillers of bread and circuses. My own feeling is that such a policy in the long run does not even deliver the bread and the circuses, and that sooner or later, Christians end up as part of the performance. Where a nation is truly divided, political action to assert one view point over the other tends to lead to violence. But there is another way. We can be patient, and try to convert people one at a time, with compassion. As the ruinous consequences of bread and circuses make themselves felt, people may reconsider the value of that kind of political theory. Sooner or later it is not people who have the authority to say what is wrong, but nature. The bridge collapses, the Challenger explodes. At that point people will listen to you when you suggest a return to the drawing board. Catherine Dalzell.