Life, Faith, the Whole Enchilada… The subtle intrusions of faith into government policy are numerous. Some seem benign, but most represent a philosophical challenge. Newt Gingrich has recently been arguing that since all rights are “endowed by our creator”, all morality likewise flows from the deity, and any righteous government must embrace God as its moral foundation.
First, I’d like to nit-pick the background a bit. Thomas Jefferson wrote “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” The Declaration of Independence is a fine document and captures the spirit of rebellion against George III, but it is not our constitution. Also noteworthy is Jefferson’s choice of words “… that they are endowed by their Creator…” Jefferson didn’t say “the Creator” or “our Creator”, but he seems to allow for a plurality and possibility that each man might perceive his own Creator. I’d prefer to believe that if Newt Gingrich was created in the image of his Creator, that perhaps I was created in the image of a different, more open-minded creator.
Further, the notion that all morality stems from the bible is culturally condescending and just dumb. Nearly every society has come to the logical conclusion that murder, theft, and violence among the “tribe” is bad. And conversely, so many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity that it’s the height of hypocrisy for Christians to claim a monopoly on moral righteousness. The concept of “do unto others” has appeared independently in nearly every religion ever developed. It’s cultural snobbishness to think Western Christianity invented the concept.
So bring your faith along as you pick a candidate, but leave your dogma outside the door of the legislature. It’s in the interest of even the most devout zealot to keep government and religion separate, and I think it’s not hard to imagine why. For example, suppose we allow “intelligent design” into the science curriculum. What’s to keep “immaculate conception” from the biology text? When will transubstantiation (wine to blood, bread to body) appear in Chemistry right before the chapter on alchemy? The only thing keeping reincarnation from the text would be the electoral clout of the Christian majority.
If the religious objections to abortion were to prevail, and we defined the first trimester embryonic life as equal to the mother’s, when would we extend protections to egg and sperm? Would certain birth control be banned? IUDs may prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. Suppose we adopt Christian Scientist refusal of all medical treatment? Are we implying a tumor has constitutional protection? (OK, I’m stretching a bit.)
Don’t get me wrong. I think abortion is a terrible “choice”, particularly as after-the-fact birth control. But it must be available for medical necessity like tubal pregnancy; I think it’s justifiable in some cases of incest or rape; and the present distinction of first trimester was a reasonable compromise by the Supreme Court.
Let’s not allow a US theocracy just because the majority takes no personal offense. The real test of a constitution and a government is not how it treats the majority; it’s how it treats the minorities. The majority should apply its Christian values by “judging not”, turning the other cheek, and giving a little charity to those whose political clout leaves them disadvantaged. Wasn’t Jesus a champion of the downtrodden?
Michael
Previous: You Should Have the Choice… -- Next: Honor all who have sacrificed for freedom… |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
