Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!fernwood!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State
Message-ID: <Sep.27.03.31.42.1990.14616@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 27 Sep 90 07:31:44 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs (Liberty Corner)
Lines: 52
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

The moderator wrote:
    
    It is sometimes not clear from your postings whether saying that one
    does not have the right to sin is a religious statement or a call
    for legislation.

Sin should be made illegal and virtue legal as far as is prudent, given
prevalent social conditions.

Human law is based on Divine law, where moral issues are concerned.  It
is simply *not* permissible for a human government to give explicit
legal right to actions that God judges to deserve Hell.

On the other hand, it is sometimes permissible for a government to look
the other way and tolerate some evil for the sake of a greater good.
There is, after all, only so much that you can do when you have a large
group of people who refuse to obey.

I suppose my main point is that Liberalism -- viewing temporal order
as the sole arbiter of legal right and wrong -- is a disastrous thing to
base governments on, when viewed in the light of the teachings of our
Lord.

    I think there's a good deal of disagreement over how far the State
    should attempt to prevent sin, with positions ranging from one side
    that says the State has no business concerning itself with morality,
    and is simply there to prevent citizens from damaging each other, to
    the other that says that the State has a responsiblity to work with
    the Church to create a Christian society.  American political theory
    has normally taken a position somewhere between.  --clh]

The disagreement that you speak of is of a different kind where
Catholics are concerned.  The fundamental problem of deciding what is
right and wrong, and getting citizens to agree with the decision, is not
the same.

I acknowledge right out that the situation in America and such a place
as 19th C. Ecuador must lead to different forms of government.

To a great extent the hinge is the doctrine of the Church.

If our Lord established the Church as a visible organization unable to
fall into major errors in faith or morals, then it of course follows
that governments formed by its members will certainly not ignore its
existence in framing laws touching on morality.

The Catholic attitude towards religion and government might be explained
in no better way than to imagine that the 12 Apostles were still alive.
Consider how governments of Christians would work given such authorities
in matters of faith and morals.

Joe Buehler