n7axw wrote:Some of this stuff can get really sticky in a hurry. Churches can and should be a part of the public conversation and are free to advocate persuasively for causes they believe in. The church of which I am a part advocates for bettering the lot of the poor, for example. Other churches are heavily into the pro-life discussion.
Both of these discussions are valid since church members are also citizens who under our polity are free to organize themselves however they see fit to seek to influence their representatives to adopt policies they believe whether through the church or separately.
Now the sticker here is that there are certain fundamental rights that cannot be legislated away and that exist whether a majority agrees with them or not. In the USA these are outlined in the Bill of Rights and in other parts of the constitution dealing with rights of citizens and limitations on governmental power. The courts are responsible for deciding just what these rights are according to the constitution. This body of material tends to be dynamic, sometimes shrinking, sometimes expanding, although the overall trend tends toward expansion of rights, even though this balanced out by a fairly constant expansion of governmental power.
What is tough about this is that from my own point of view, all decisions are ultimately moral decisions lived out under the care of God. I can choose, within limits, to live according to that creed. But since my actions have impact on the people around me, what I am actually free to do is a matter of constant negotiation. For example, I am free to worship, to help the poor, to express my faith in a multitude of ways. I am not free to compel you to worship in my church or to worship at all, to offer human sacrifice to my god, or to practice polygamy--things which are contrary to or even destructive to the social contract which governs how we live in relationship to each other.
What makes this sticky is that nothing is static. The limits are always under negotiation, are always in flux.
This post got away from me. So I am going to stop here and see what the rest of you do with it.
Don
Quite correct, these things are extremely subject to change. At the time the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) was drafted, it was almost dropped, since it was self evident to everyone at the time, whereas separation of church and state was very controversial and mostly made it because while each of the many variants of Christianity would have been thrilled to have the power f the state behind it, each was more terrified of what would happen if one of the other "sects" got control. Now the Second amendment is under severe attack and separation of church and state pretty much accepted, although there are a number of groups that would like to change that - they should consider what would happen to their rights should they succeed, and some heretics got control of the government.