As we become more and more entrenched in the conflicts that certain laws create between religious groups and lawmakers, I can't help but wonder, if each group complains only when they stand to benefit personally from such disagreement.
For myself I can only say that one side is no less complicated than the other when it comes to understanding the complexities of each.
If I were asked the question, "would Jesus have sentenced to a man to death if that man committed first degree murder?" I would have to say, no. And yet, even as I profess to being a Christian, if I were asked, "do you support the death penalty?" I would have to say, the punishment should fit the crime and if the murderer showed no remorse for a cold-blooded killing, then yes, I would support the death penalty. I have long felt that a criminal should endure the same fate as his victim. Does that make me less a Christian? Can I be a Christian and serve on a jury that condemns a man to die? I don't know. The Bible tells us Thou shalt not kill' and yet the Bible also tells us obey the laws of man'.
There are so many gray areas when it comes to deciding who-or which group-should decide what is right and what is wrong when the issues cross the line between Church and State. Pro-abortionists would say that a mother should have the say in the life or death of her unborn fetus and yet, Pro-life advocates would say that it is killing and killing is a crime against both the Church and the State. But if it is a case where the mother may die if the child isn't aborted, who should decide which person should live and which person should die? In such a case, the mother should decide if she has the ability, otherwise it should be her husband or closest family member-eliminating the decision all together from the Church or State.
There are moral and legal issues in the case of illegal immigrants entering the United States. Should they be allowed to stay, should they be forced to learn the English language as a requirement to earn citizenship in this country, should they receive healthcare aid, financial aid, educational aid without becoming citizens first? Should they be loaded into a truck, train, plane, whatever, and shipped back to their own countries without question? The Church may tell us it would not be the Christian thing to do, but our government would tell us we have to protect our borders and there have to be laws to govern these issues. Should companies who hire these illegal immigrants be fined and forced to pay extra taxes for all the taxes they probably haven't paid in all the years they have employed these workers? I think they should and I think their fines should be extreme, for although they say that these are jobs that Americans refuse to do, I don't readily believe that. And any government official participating in this tax-free-slave-labor should be punished to the full extent of the law. This is not to say that I do not have compassion or feelings for these people who are mostly trying to make a better life for themselves, but I can't help but agree with the old saying charity begins at home'. And all to often it is the criminals and terrorists who infiltrate our too loose borders.
All in all, I don't feel there is any way to totally separate Church and State. There are too many variances that would require the intervention of both. What of war crimes and the ethical treatment of prisoners of war? Who decides what is just immoral and what is just plain breaking-the-law?
A bill finally passed in Congress just last June allows schools to display the Ten Commandments. However, the same people who fought for this issue fight against allowing schools to teach sex education. I would think that anyone who would want their children taught religious values, would also appreciate that they be taught physical morals as well. I think that our fast paced technological world has taken too much away from more and more family quality' time and too many children that aren't taught morality in school aren't taught it at all.
With all this we don't want to forget the latest issue to bounce around the halls from the Supreme Court to the halls of the Vatican-
same sex marriage. The issue here is whether or not the government should be allowed to regulate intimate relationships of consenting adults and whether or not religious organizations would recognize such a union as it negates the conventional reason for marriage in the first place.I think the government involvement is based more on the community's concern for the well-being of children. From a religious standpoint there are too many variations on different verses in the Bible to even contemplate how the numerous religious sects will react to this issue. Some religions already perform these unions. Six countries and two states in the United States now perform same-sex marriages. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I was taught that marriage should be between a man and a woman; therefore that it is what I will continue to believe.
Separation of
Church and
State and the separation of
religion and
politics may be two horses of a different color-Churches should not have any control over their States civil governments and vise versa, but I think it would be much harder to keep religion out of politics. Some may argue that Jesus didn't get involved with politics, but it was the very leaders of government and religion that clashed over the growing strength of Jesus' teachings; ultimately condemning him in a farce trial. Even as a baby, Jesus was considered a threat to the throne of the infamous King Herod. And it didn't begin there, what about the Egyptians and their Israelite slaves? Could there not have been some mixture of Church/State or religion/politics during those long ago cultures? And what about Adam? I think it was the politician coming out in him when he guiltily proclaimed, "Eve made me do it!"
Life goes on and as each new conundrum rears its ugly head, there will always be fall-out and who will pay the ultimate price? Who will survive the tug of war as it rips the arms off the contestants? Whenever there's a winner, there is also a loser.
John Adams once wrote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other.'
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with passions
unbridled by morality and religion.'
Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone
which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.'
And as my head spins with all the thousands of dilemmas fraught in our government and our religions, there I have found the one ideal with which I can totally agree.
One Nation, Under God.
Sandra E. Graham, author,
AMOS JAKEY and
NICOLINA through American Book Publishing. I also write book reviews for Book Pleasures. Visit my website for more info http://www.sandragraham-articles-books.com
