East T-Mor bringin it
The Right to Privacy is interesting in that neither the constitution or the Bill of Rights specifically states such a right. Yes the 1st, 4th & 5th are used by many to state that the right exists, but in reality, the right to privacy is always narrowly defined. Most of Privacy laws are state laws and are almost always relinquished for the "good of the state". Most of these laws deal with information and not an individuals right to privacy of life. This was actually and issue when Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court was being grilled before congress. It wasn't until the Late 1800's that the issue was thought to be a valid constitutional argument. It has been a major issue with abortion, gun ownership, and most recently with convicted sex offenders who have served their sentences to completion. Not to mention everything concerning privacy and the war against terror. I know at the rural churches I serve many "patriotic" Americans could care less about their right to privacy, or they say. That scares me!
Craig mentioned culture to embracing laicism. I am for a narrowly defined laicism. When I say that I mean I don't want Pastor's telling congregations how to vote, or throwing people out of church because they voted a certain way. I don't believe it is the institutional church's responsibility to be involved in government, but that is not to say that it is not the church's responsibility to be involved. President Bush does not speak for the
Tony Moreau
posted by Unknown at 5:07 PM
1 Comments:
Just a quick point of clarification. I believe Tony and I are using the word "laicism" differently, based on his description of his concerns. By "laicism" I refer to the movement resulting from the French Revolution that sought to eliminate the expression of religion in the public square. Laicism is not simply tolerant of religious views, but rather is antagonistic towards religion in general. Religion is entirely a private matter and should not be discussed, promoted, or used to legitimate one's value judgments. For example, in a culture embracing laicism, it is inappropriate to import one's religious views into a public forum in order to argue a moral issue. Thus, one arguing in favor (in opposition to) abortion could not support that perspective based on religious values. One must check your religion at the door. Laicism is a French concept that is present, I believe, in the proposed European constitution.
This is very different from the American perspective on the separation between church and state. The French sought to protect the state from religion, whereas the Founding Fathers sought to preserve religious tolerance and to protect freedom of religion from the government. Thus our concept is not historically antagonistic towards religion, but seeks to preserve it. See for example Jefferson's code of religious tolerance adopted by the state of Virginia.
When I refer negatively to laicism I refer to the European style antagonism to religion which is popular among some intelligentsia.
Post a Comment
<< Home