Wednesday, 17 May 2006

• Removing the influence of religion from politics

  I whole-heartedly agree with the concept of the separation of church and state.  But what exactly does this statement mean?  I do not believe that this statement in our Constitution advocates nor allows the complete removal of God or anything religious from public institutions or laws.  Religion is an important, if not crucial, aspect of most people's lives.  For most people, morals derived from their religion control their actions more than the law.  By removing all aspects of religion from the law removes the basis on which the law stands.

  The reason why our founding fathers advocated the separation of church and state was so that the influence of the church would not be allowed to terrorize the people.  The hope was for the two to coexist in separate realms.  However, this does not mean that all mention of God and prayer had to be removed from schools and public places.  People should still be able to practice their religion freely.  Just because one prays before their meals or mentions God's name in relation to their country doesn't mean one advocates the governmental institutionalization of religion.

  I find it obsurd that politicians, lawmakers, and all members of secular society are expected to leave their religion at home.  If people don't agree with each other as to the true nature of the cosmos, that's fine.  But that doesn't mean we can't continue to follow what we believe when we're together.

  NOTE: I started thinking about this after reading the article at this link-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4989034.stm

  • 2:14 PM
  • 2 Views
  • 2 eProps
  • 1 Comment