Wow Pat -- thanks for this. I almost missed it. Sure hope Dave Larson, as well as Cliff Goldstein, pick up this thread and offer counter views if so inclined.

I do realize that you were not here to participate in the early (earlier) days of this blog, but back then, I often complained of a double standard in operation here. It seemed, to me anyway, and rightly or wrongly, that there existed a real fright of the so called “Religious Right” in that they needed to shut up, sit down, and NOT feel so called to bring their own ethics and morals into the political arena for the creation of laws that ALL would then be compelled to obey. This, some insisted, violates the separation clause.

My replies often were to the effect that wait; how is YOUR involvement any better? For many on this site really DO see their own particular vision of God’s Kingdom as having FULL access to the coercive powers of the State. That their own particular policies and programs and politics ARE allowed to use earthly governments as their vehicle for enaction and enforcement, while those whose policies they disagree with are not, seems, well, duplicitous at best.

This dilemma awaits some sort of resolution for me… Perhaps this Essay will prompt it.

I do think however that there is an unfortunate drive to divide motivations for social concerns into sacred (or religious) and secular. Sometimes it’s framed as private and public ethics. Politicians often find themselves having to straddle this vast chasm. It could get painfully ludicrous as I’ve watched. (for example -- and maybe this example doesn’t work for everyone…) Al Gore once said during a debate that while he believed abortion was wrong, he would not allow his “private beliefs” to inform his public policy. My personal response was shock and horror: for a) how on earth does one neatly divide their “private” and their “public” conscience, but further, b) don’t we WANT leaders whose conscience leads them to RIGHT actions -- in private AND in public??

Now I’m not exactly sure where this thread will go, but do you worry about the so called concept of tyranny of the majority? For me it’s not an easy issue. Many here have also talked about the right to “civil disobedience” wherein they feel they have a moral obligation to VIOLATE laws which they feel are, by their OWN standards and views, unjust. Well, if this is so noble, and everyone who doesn’t like the law simply has an obligation to disobey that law, why bother MAKING laws in the first place??

So yeah Pat -- I guess I too would like to understand what’s going on here...

Greetings Pat [and Bob]!

I did "pick up this thread" and I hope to participate in a fruitful exchange. Meanwhile, my thanks to Pat for the essay and to Alex for posting it and to Bob for highlighting it.

I'm certain I'm not going to get everything on my mind said this time around. But perhaps we can get started.

1. I favor "domestic partnerships" that have nothing to do with sex and have nothing to do with the separation of church and state. But I do not want to get into that issue here for fear of derailing the conversation.

2. Neither do I want to get into a tug-of-war about what the "founders" believed. There were a lot of them and they didn't all think the same way. But I don't think this is the place to sort that out.

3. The question as I understand it is: "If any at all, what is the proper role of religion in public life?" This is not an easy question to answer!

John Rawls, widely thought to be the twentieth century's greatest theorist of justice, changed his views on this. For a while he thought that all religion should be kept entirely out of public life. But he eventually eased back from that position. If he can acknowledge the complexity of the issue, I think we can as well.

4. The problem as I now see it is that no society flourishes without some very important shared beliefs, values and practices but that all attempts of people in the past to force particular forms of religious observance have wholly discredited themselves by all the needless blood they have shed. This is as true of the religion of Stalinism as it is of any of the more obvious ones.

That's it for now. Have to go to a Memorial Service. More later, I hope!

Thank you!

Dave

2.

Would it appropirate for the increasing number of Hindus in various countires around the world to start pressing for laws that would make eating beef illegal for the sole reason that their religion tells them that this is wrong? If so, why? If not, why not?

I'm not asking if they could succeed. At this time the answer is certainly "no." But would there be anything wrong with them starting what would likely be a very long effort to outlaw the eating of cattle in the name of their religion?

It's intersting that this blog should appear at the same time as the book review on American Gospel by Jon Meacham. I wonder if Pat has read it.

My understanding of freedom in America is the old saying that my freedom stops where your nose begins, or something like that. In other words, people are free to act as their conscience directs as long as they are not infringing on someone else's liberty.

As far as our Adventist position on religious freedom, my understanding is that we believe that the particular belief of one church or group should not be legislated to apply to everyone. Ex., Sunday laws.

For many years now I have been closely following the struggles of many Christian denominations, as well as other non-Christian religions, as often sizeable minorities have seriously studied the issue of homosexuality and come to a new understanding of what the Bible says and doesn't say about it. I suppose Pat and a number of other posters here might say that such people are not really Christians, or are deceived by Satan, or something. But that is their sincere belief.

So, Pat, do you think those of us who disagree with them have the right to legislate our beliefs over theirs? Wouldn't the Sunday churches have just as much right to legislate Sunday laws? And going beyond the right to have gay marriages or domestic partnerships that provide all the rights of marriage, why do some of our religious liberty leaders even urge Adventists to vote against non-discrimination in housing and hiring for gays, or against national hate-crime legislation?

I believe that people should not advocate laws that will force purely religious observances on those who are not of the same faith.

Thus, in the case of eating beef, if the only objection by some Hindus is that their religion forbids it, they should not press for laws. Furthermore, if they do and succeed, the courts should strike down these legal requirements.

But if these Hindus do this but also advocate making eating beef illegal on secondary principles that others can debate, I have no problem.

For instance, if they contend that eating beef is needlessly hard on cattle and not good for all of us in addition to being contrary to their religion, I think they should feel free to move forward.

I say "secondary principles" because if we ask why anyone should care about relieving the suffering of animals or take good care of our bodies, we would get a variety of "primary" answers from people with different forms of faith and unfaith.

I think this is how we SDAs have addressed the evils of tobacco products and the corporations that sell them.

We have not said that other people should not smoke or chew solely because our religion says that this is wrong.

We have said that doing this is bad for their health and ours (second hand smoke counts) and that therefore we should have laws that regulate and heavily tax tobacco to help pay for all the societal costs it engenders.

Our primary reason for taking this stand, namely that because our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit that we are duty bound by our religion to protect them from such poisons, probably differs from millions of other who agree with us on the secondary level.

Back, now, to gay and lesbian marriage. I would say that if the only reason we oppose it is that our religion condemns it, we should certainly not practice it among ourselves but that we should encourage others to do as they see fit and protect them when they do.

But if in addition to that we have other reasons that pertain to people who are not part of our faith, then we should feel free to make our case in the public arena as persuasively as possible.

A case against gay and lesbian marriage would have to appeal to the alleged present and future negative consequences of such unions for the those in them and/or for the whole of society.

The present and future common good is the only justification for making any case in the public square for laws that will inconvenience or even offend some.

In this regard tradition does not matter. Sunday laws are wrong even though they go way back in our history.

This is the point at which some may object. They may want to say that keeping gay and lesbian marriage illegal is justified because this is our tradition without regard to the present and future common good.

In this I believe that they are mistaken.

Thanks!

Dave

I thought the discussion on homosexual unions was focused on the Church santifying the union as marriage. The State has other interests. Certainly civil union should be recognized for property rights if for no other reason.

I will cite my next door neighbors once again. The dominate member found another lover. The dominate member held title to the property. She died of ovarian cancer. Her heirs took control of the property and sold it and took all the proceedings. The partner had to find a low cost rental property--in the process she lost her business and lives on welfare--even though she had put at least 50% into the property next door. (a property worth at least $200,000. even in its run down condition.)

To me that is a greater sin than two women sharing a bed.

Tom

The U.S. has both adapted and subsequently adopted amendments to the Constitution when its social mores have evolved and changed, such as: voting not limited to land owners or Caucasians, but eventually to former slaves and Blacks, and lastly to women. When the majority members of this country change their stance and ideology, laws will be changed as history has shown.

The Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of laws and either rules, or refuses to hear many cases. In 1973 Roe v. Wade became the law. It is still being argued, although the majority of Americans, while not "for" abortion, do not want the government to decide if and when it should be an option for women.

As for either gay marriage or civil unions, so far, that has been a decision for the states and not the federal government. Marriage is a civil institution for which a couple must obtain a license from the state which is not a religious institution unless a couple desires the added benefit. Same sex unions most definitely should be legalized for the situations Tom gave, and many more which have been, and will continue to occur.

Thomas Jefferson is so often quoted, but one of the most apt for this discussion: "Whether my neighbor has no god or twenty gods, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Still, an excellent rule to follow. We should not encumber others with what we may wish to do, and if our neighbor's actions or thoughts do not intrude upon ours, it becomes freedom and liberty for both of us. We can have freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion.

As for the bogey man of Sunday worship: no one can force another to worship, anymore than love can be forced. Many people (children?) have been taken to worship where they did not worship, which cannot be forced. Worship can no more be legislated than love. What is there to worry about a Sunday law then?

Tom

I think the illustration you give of your neighbors is exactly the kind of thing our laws should prevent by legalizing domestic unions of all sorts. I think siblings, friends, cousins, etc. should be able to form such unions without any reference whatsoever about sex or sexuality.

It is in society's interest to foster as many small and stable social units as possible.

Yes, there is an important difference between a civil domestic union and a Christian marriage. Separating the civil and the religious rites like some other countries do is a really good idea, I believe.

Elaine

I agree with you 100% except for your apparent comfort with Sunday laws. I don't think they are the evil of all evils; yet I think that people should be free to do whatever they want seven days a week. The burden of justification rests with those who advocate them and I don't think they have succeeded.

Thanks!

Dave

Dave, I am not comfortable with any laws that attempt to restrain humans that differs because of the day. Nor, have I been convinced that a future Sunday law, either national or worldwide could possibly be passed, given the extreme hostility among countries today on nearly every act of life.

It seems to be an idea that could only get traction during the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th when the world and the U.S. was much smaller. Even the prophetic interpretation of the Bible that has given rise within Adventism for this future law is difficult to pronounce or preach given the situation today. I'm still waiting to be convinced that it has any merit.

As an aside: it was Constantine who proclaimed the first religious liberty law allowing all citizens to freely worship as they wished, be it pagan, Jewish or Christian (Edict of Milan, 313 A.D.)

Asoka, an Indian Buddhist ruler (mid 200s BCE) is called by some the most humane ruler in history. He championed religious freedom although he spread Buddhist tenants. He also championed vegetarianism. Perhaps the closest we've come to a Peaceable Kingdom in our bloody history as humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great

One of the interesting things I find about this thread--so far, at least--is lack of explicit, well-developed biblical rational for positions on church and state. What I'm seeing instead are allusions to SDA eschatology, appeals to ethical reasoning, and statements of personal preference. (Please pardon me if I have missed something.)

Do Adventists have a well-developed scriptural articulation on this subject--either officially or unofficially? As I see matters, the church tends to rely on a particular interpretation of eschatology linked Ellen White's view of the Great Controversy. In my experience, fear (of Sunday laws and other end-time elements) plays a prominent part. Personally, I don't find this a strong foundation for guiding individual decisions or church policy.

The complexity that surrounded the Founding (and to which I refer in the review of Jon Meacham's book) included efforts by Baptists (yes, Baptists) to keep government and religion separate. So it IS possible to build such a rationale based on biblical foundations.

Thanks for the feedback. I have been out of town since the posting. I will make an attempt at responding over the next 24 hrs.

pat

Leigh:

I do find it interesting that you would ask for a well-developed scriptural articulation on this subject... instead of allusions to eschatology, ethical reasoning and personal preference... For once one has formulated such a scriptural articulation, it would then be ruled inadmissible wouldn't it -- because then it would BE explicitly religious.

What a catch-22: develop a biblical basis to speak to an ethic which we're also saying is NOT to be guided by one person's understanding OF that same bible.
Awkward...
Wouldn't the point be that if it comes from my interpretation of the bible, it is therefore out-of-bounds for public enforcement?? Isn't that then kind of self-negating??

It really is tricky -- isn't it: come up with a biblical basis by which we are to allow ourselves the right/obligation to try and form a society which is NOT to be formed by specific groups understandings of scripture...Which is exactly how I formulated the idea in the first place...

Dave:

I have some practical problems with what you seem to be suggesting (if I understand you correctly…)

You seem to assume that the ability to distinguish what is “purely religious” is going to be easy and non-controversial. Is that really the case??
Further, for very many, the word “religious” has to do with belief in some kind of a God; when in fact it has as much to do with some sort of external controlling force/power (some call it God, some call it other things) in which case “religion” can include many ideologies which explicitly reject “God” of the Christian, but feel quite justified in substituting their own… So even the term “religious” seems ambiguous and vague. Does the atheist have more right to formulate the laws under which I must be obligated to operate that do I simply because he has no “God” and I do?? That method seems inherently stacked against ME.

The way you have formulated this it seems that the one who is more clever at disguising their “religion” as “secondary principles” will win the day and make the laws. This again seems unfair and unjust. One can only imagine the ensuing arguments: “You’re trying to import GOD here…” “No No! -- this is not God but is good for ALL of us!”

And further, if one believes that their “religion” really truly does bring a “better” life (how many vegetarians exude their confidence in just such a better life!) why would they not want to extend that “better life” to others too??

When you talk about the “common good” isn’t there a real element of subjectivity to this? Worse though, if totally objective “studies” found that religious act X really did help the common good, would we then be willing to enforce this particular religion based good on everyone??

And this doesn’t touch on the value of “freedom” much at all. Liberty; the very soul of american politics and principles. And yet, is that freedom unlimited? You don’t like it when I constrain yours, I don’t like it when you constrain mine. Who decides? But Bob? Don’t you see this law I endorse is for your GOOD? Well, what if I don’t?
I still don't see an overriding principle that can animate all. Someone is going to be unhappy no matter what we decide. Who's that going to be??

Leigh

Are we certain that we need an exclusively Biblical basis for our views on the separation of church and state?

I think these convictions emerged in part from our weariness with the religous tyranny and wars in Western Europe. Without this specific history our views today might have been very different and, I think, rightly so.

But you're the historian, not me!

Bob

Your right! No matter what course we take we are going to encounter all kinds of practical problems.

Incidentally, I prefer a very broad definiton of religion: "meaning map," as in, as a variation of Christopher Hitchens, "Humans are meaning mapping mammals."

But can't we agree: (1) that liberty is the default position, meaning that we should have as few laws as possible and only as many as necessary; (2)that debates about what laws we will have should center upon what will be best for the whole community, recognizing that what the word "best" should mean is rightly part of the debates; (3) that the whole effort is human and therefore finite and fallible even when we try our best to be fair.

WHAT LAWS WOULD I FAVOR IF I DID NOT KNOW WHETHER I AM A THEIST OR ATHEIST?

I think the answer to this question will take us a long ways down the right road, even if not to the ultimate destination.

What do you think?

Dave

I suppose a biblical basis would be God's gift of free choice.

Thanks to all for the various concepts and good feedback. I first put this article on Spectrum online in 2004 when there was talk of a Constitutional Amendment.

In my thinking, Baptist Roger Williams of R.I. fame has the clearest thinking on the use of God’s moral law and the state. His concept was that the first four commandments were an individual’s responsibility (“soul-liberty”) to God and the last six to one’s fellow man. The last six could be used as a guide to the State and secular society but not the first four. He is credited with the first use of “wall of separation” and Jefferson perhaps used his predecessor’s insight.

BOB-

You said, “For many on this site really DO see their own particular vision of God’s Kingdom as having FULL access to the coercive powers of the State. That their own particular policies and programs and politics ARE allowed to use earthly governments as their vehicle for enacting and enforcement, while those whose policies they disagree with are not, seems, well, duplicitous at best.”

I agree Bob, not only on this site but in the “liberal/conservative” debate in general. I feel that Liberty Mag. has seldom mentioned the influence and “dangers of the religious left”… if ever.
I asked the question on this blog of why it is against the concept of “separation” for religious conservatives to press for “moral behavioral” concepts BUT NOT for religious liberals and mainline churches to press for “tax supported state and federal moral- social programs, environmental action, economic concepts for the economy etc.”

You also said Bob, “Does the atheist have more right to formulate the laws under which I must be obligated to operate that do I simply because he has no “God” and I do?? That method seems inherently stacked against ME.
The way you (Dave) have formulated this it seems that the one who is more clever at disguising their “religion” as “secondary principles” will win the day and make the laws. This again seems unfair and unjust. One can only imagine the ensuing arguments: “You’re trying to import GOD here…” “No No! -- this is not God but is good for ALL of us!”

Again Bob, you have touched on a “double standard” in the conversation. Only THEY have the intelligence and wisdom to understand what is best for us the community and “it takes a village”…to me that is a little scary, you think!
Again you commented on the fact that by government law someone is likely to always feel “coerced.” Yes, that is the way it works and we all have to conform to government laws or face prosecution. In the church, we can simply pick another community.

DAVE,
You answered your own question about Hindu’s as it would violate “establishment” and “free exercise.” Also animals have rights but they are not equal to humans as related to food supply.
Likewise, considering Roger Williams “duty to God” should rule out “Sunday blue laws.”
As to your view of all laws must be for the “common good.” Are individual property rights a part of that “common good.” You see we must always differentiate the rights of the “one and many” as part of the “common good.”

LEIGH-
I appreciate your posting by Meacham. I would like to read this book.
I would like to see your understanding (scriptural) outline of the separation of church and state posted if you have time.
I agree we as SDA’s have formed one based on EGW and our understanding of Eschatology.
I believe because of our historical bad taste with Sunday laws perhaps it has caused us to have an OVER “separation” mentality in areas of “common mores and ethical” considerations. Could this "over separation" perhaps cause a more rapid deterioration of society that brings a "crisis?"

Tom,
If society chooses to passes legislation for “civil unions” fine. It opens but another area of litigation that is driven primarily by “tax laws and corporate and state benefits involvement” in the areas of most interest to the parties.
They could divide private property presently if they chose by simple contract…could they not?
----------------------------------------------------------

In closing, religious conservatives feel that “family values” and laws which support the family unit help prevent many of society’s problems. Broken families and divorce are the largest contributors of children in poverty i.e. It seems to many of we “fiscal and social conservatives” that to simply create a federal or state program to create a “monetary/social net” solution merely helps create another incentive for such activity. I think Bill Cosby was trying to say this in his own way to the Black community.
The point also of this article is that “legislation/creation of law” is to originate in the state and federal legislature…not the court system. The court may say what it deems as unconstitutional but it should not “create and originate legislation.”

Again thanks for the discourse and I hope it continues.

Carrol,

You said,"I suppose a biblical basis would be God's gift of free choice." (church state issues)

As regards to civil law, tell of "your free choice" to the policeman/woman next time you get a ticket!

:~)

Pat said: As regards to civil law, tell of "your free choice" to the policeman/woman next time you get a ticket!

Well, God allows me to choose what path to follow, but doesn't protect me from the consequences, so the same goes for civil consequences.

Pat said: They could divide private property presently if they chose by simple contract…could they not?

I know of gay couples who had to spend thousands of dollars to legally duplicate the many benefits marriage provides, and still were unable to completely duplicate them all.

Pat said: In closing, religious conservatives feel that “family values” and laws which support the family unit help prevent many of society’s problems. Broken families and divorce are the largest contributors of children in poverty i.e.

I have yet to hear a reasonable argument that explains why gay civil unions contribute to broken families and divorce among heterosexual couples.

Dave:

You asked:
WHAT LAWS WOULD I FAVOR IF I DID NOT KNOW WHETHER I AM A THEIST OR ATHEIST?
Which serves as a rather hypothetical situation since I doubt I’ve ever met anyone like this.

Of course I think we’re both talking about the difficulties inherent in sharing a planet (or country or state or town) with people whose idea of good and best and fair differ. Everyone has their own ideas and particular way of ordering the individual freedom vs. responsibility to the group balance. But we also might agree that it’s curious when one groups ideas are de novo expected to get short shrift simply because they came from an “un-approved” source; namely, God! If we believe an idea is good/helpful/best -- what conceivable sense does it make to agree to be forced to the sideline simply because the idea doesn’t pass someone else’s “God sniff” test? (even a whiff of “God” and the idea becomes illegitimate??) That the idea is thought by the person to come from God should be irrelevant shouldn’t it? I’m just not quite sure why the meaning map of the Christian is supposed to take second place by default UNLESS the meaning map of the non-Christian happens to coincide with the Christians on some particular aspect.

“Well, we can’t go around forcing ‘our version of God’ on people” is supposedly what is to motivate our thinking, but why would the idea of forcing ones “Godless version of reality” be any more worthy? And my sense is that those who lean to the left are far more willing to engage in the delicate “task” of teasing out their good “God” ideas from their plain ‘ol good ideas than are those who lean right. For the “right” often openly chafes at the idea of giving up an idea BECAUSE it seems to have a “God pedigree”

It’s almost like a tacit admission by those who lean left that if ideas come from God, that in itself makes them irrelevant because they are inadmissible! Which seems like a very startling thing for a Christian to say about his own beliefs!

I realize that this bluntness goes against the traditional SDA doctrine of separation -- which, by the way, I’ve found that precious few SDA’s are capable of defending well. Mostly the idea translates into their willingness to sideline themselves from important community discussions; discussions which can’t honestly take place if one side already has two strikes against it…

Pat

Of course gay couples could form contractual agreements. However, these do not carry the same protection as martial status. Furthermore, if the contract is contested, frequently one or the other does not have the means to engage competent legal counsel. My candid advise is against homosexual union of any sort. But it exists. Certainly they have to be comfortable with each other, the law, and the Lord. Since no same sex couples has asked for my opinion, I can ouly suggest in a public forum: Don't do it, if you do-- know the property rights in your state. Thankfully there are no heirs, except where adoption is premitted to same sex couples. Tom

Bob

You must have had some unpleasant experiences with liberals! That's no more fun or justified than having unpleasant experiences with conservatives. I regret it when this happens either way.

Your right, the orgin of an idea does not guarantee whether it was true or false.
Some things that people say they get from God are false. Some ideas from psychotic people are true.

The problem is that some people apparently want us to believe and do things for the sole reason that they believe God has commanded us all to do what they propose.

They rarely succeed and they shouldn't. The public demands and deserves reasons it can understand and evaluate. Assertions that God commands this or that is not one of them.

Thanks!

Dave

Carrol,

What I was trying to convey is that "civil law" and "programs" generally diminishes "choices" rather than adding them.

Claiming one's opinion comes from God, is an obviously flawed argument as God has been represented in the Bible as behaving lovingly, but irrationally, cruelly, capriciously and more. Why not be truthful and claim that your ideas are yours, personally, and have been derived from many sources: home, church, education, experience and more? No mature, thinking adult has a one-track mind that is constantly asking himself, what would God do? It should be hoped that since none of us has the mind of God, nor are we expected to forego our reasoning powers which he gave us, that we will formulate our positions on much safer ground than "God's will" which has meant hundreds of different ideas through the centuries and is nothing but a copout, IMO.

It is a mantra to say: "Whatever God wishes," or "God is in charge of my life," when in reality, unless we have abandoned all choices and assumed a neonates' ability to reason, we have admitted to being captive to anyone's will and desires for us.

Well said, Elaine. Thank you!
Dave