Should religion be part of the law?
Where does your religion -- your belief or disbelief -- show itself? Is it an internal thing? Is it in your heart and your mind? Is it in national politics? Or is it in a global world view?
Our founding fathers in the first amendment to the Constitution seem to think it is personal. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This seems pretty simple. Religious organizations get no special treatment from the government—pro or con. No tax exemptions. No regulations. No White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. No differences for believers and non-believers. If this how you think our country should operate, please go to the poll at lower right and vote for Option 1: Religion should be personal. It should have no absolutely no recognition by the government.
As you probably know, this is not the way our country really operates. The IRS code gives tax exemptions to religious organizations, along with restrictions on what they can do while enjoying these benefits. Institutions cannot use tax exempt dollars to tell you how to vote. Nevertheless we have many examples of churches advocating for or against laws about gay marriage and abortion. Our government can't establish or prohibit a specific religion but it does support religious activities of various sorts. Is this right? Is this what we should be doing? If you think it is, vote for Option 2: Religions should be supported and limited just like we support and limit other educational and charitable institutions.
U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has investigated religious activity in the U.S. His most recent investigation has produced a staff report with a recommendation that the Congress relax the IRS ban on electioneering by religions and other nonprofit groups. In 2009, he introduced the "We the People Act." This bill would have reduced the federal courts' jurisdiction. These and similar proposed laws would widen the role of religion in the lawmaking process.
Some people think organizations of believers and non-believers should try to make their religious principles into law. We could stay within the existing framework of the Constitution as we know it, but go much further to "establish" religious principles. Why not use our legal system to control gay rights, abortions, profanity, and working on the Sabbath? If we believe that God prohibits these things, why aren't they illegal? If you think this is the role of religion, please vote for Option 3: Religions should attempt to establish laws in the U.S. that implement their understanding of what right and wrong.
The Constitution and the First Amendment were unique when they were created in the 1700s. Most countries then and many countries today view the established religion and the civil government as two parts of the same governing structure. In Iran, for example, the law is based on Shi'a Islamic law or "sharia." The basic law of Saudi Arabia says: "...God's Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God's prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution...."
Should something similar be the goal of American religions? Should the Bible, with some set of interpretations, be the source book for American law? Are the Ten Commandments the basis of law? Should judges defer to religious leaders to define right and wrong?" If you think this is the direction we should be moving please vote for Option 4: American religions should attempt to change the Constitution to base our laws on religious principles.
Should Americans limit their thinking about religion and morality to the U.S.? Aren't we dedicated to fighting evil wherever we find it? Professor Brandon Scott of Phillips Theological Seminary argues that Jesus did not really mean "kingdom of God." Scott says that the correct translation is "Empire of God." What Jesus had in mind, he says, was replacing the rule of the Roman Empire by a new empire ruled by God. The Roman Empire, at that time, ruled over virtually the entire civilized world. Should we be seeking the same dominance for our moral principles?
In his famous speech on March 18, 1983, President Reagan described the Soviet Union as an evil empire. He argued that the U.S. military was part of "the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil." President G. W. Bush, in his second inaugural address declared a US policy "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Jesus talked about "establishing the Empire of God." Is the proper goal of the U.S. to spread our religious and moral values throughout the world?" If this is your view, please vote for Option 5: The U.S. should behave like an empire to establish our beliefs and values at home and around the world.
I know that these questions ask you to choose between broad categories. If you just can't do it, please choose Option 6: None of the above captures my views. If you do, please explain your views in the comment field at ocregister.com/religion.
I am looking forward to seeing your vote and your comments below.
Read more at www.ocregister.com
No comments:
Post a Comment