debate-points, usa, legal, secularismAtheist or otherwise, as members of society, we can look at and understand the core functions of religion. However, religion has been known to overstep its boundaries. What are some models for delineating between appropriate and inappropriate exercises of Church influence in public life? Frequently, the government needs to enforce a boundary around that authority, and reference a social value it is upholding in doing so.
For instance, in the U.S., churches’ tax exempt status can be revoked when they become politically affiliated (i.e. through the official endorsement of a candidate). Also, despite efforts to the contrary, U.S. government monies are not to be appropriated to religious organizations.
What is a reasonable explanation that clearly explains why churches should be contained (i.e. by one’s government, despite free speech protections), and details precisely what constitutes an inappropriate use of religious authority?
In the US, there is significant case law precedent that any public act not favor one religion over another. This is why, for instance, nativity scenes on public property, prayers before government meetings and in schools, and religious-based lessons may not take place on public school property.
Deciding what is and is not an appropriate use of religious authority is more of a sticky situation. Certainly religious leaders themselves have the right to favor one candidate over another, and, if you look at their public statements during campaigns, it’s usually not too difficult to figure out which candidate they support. But religions themselves should be held to some simple standards by a secular government: their holy book, however interesting, should carry no more weight than any other holy book in terms of leverage in setting public policy. And on matters that are a matter of dogma or doctrine that aren’t specifically spelled out in their book (such as, say, abortion or the definition of marriage), then they should have no more influence than any other group.
A common sense approach to this question in terms of setting public policy is: does the official policy of the religion infringe upon the rights of people who don’t adhere to that religion? Helping the poor, for example, by operating a soup kitchen, would not infringe upon non-believers’ rights. Opposing abortion, however, would limit or hinder the non-believer’s access to an abortion and should therefore be thought of as “going too far”. (Note that by “non-believer,” I do not specifically mean an atheist but rather anyone who doesn’t follow that particular faith…) For true separation of church and state, the gay marriage issue should be couched in any way that would not force a religion that does not wish to sanctify a same sex union into doing so. (This is kind of like the Catholic position on divorce. A Catholic couple may get a divorce in the eyes of the state, but in the eyes of the church, they’re still married…)
The question and the explanation don’t match good to each other, imho.
The question is about where the government draws the boundary for the church, not you and me?
Religious authorities are only authorities in their organisation, and not outside. They must respect human rights, and civil rights. Discrimination of sex, race and so on must be prohibited - whatever their holy book or guru sais or said. Children should be - in my opinion - be protected from religious influence. Mutilation or other anatomic distortion in the name of some deity should be prohibited for persons below the age of adults.
Every child should have the right to reject religious practice of his family.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.