Separation of church and state. It’s in the First Amendment
and it is a crucial to the identity of the United States. However, it seems
that people have a hard time applying this concept to their political actions
whether in office or in electing officials. Joe Biden is an exemplary
politician in that he is able to separate his personal beliefs from his
political beliefs.
Paul Ryan is the antithesis of separation of church and
state. When asked how the role of religion plays into his views on abortion, Ryan
replied “I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their
private life or from their faith…Our faith informs us in everything we do.” I
think it is very wrong for a politician to blatantly speak out against the
separation of church and state because it is a core value to American
government. If Ryan cannot separate his religious beliefs from the actions he
would take as vice president of the United States, he is not qualified to serve
as a political official in a secular nation.
Joe Biden on the other hand serves as a role model for all
politicians. He is Catholic and accepts the church’s position that life begins
at conception.
But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that.
Both Biden and Ryan agree that people have differences of
opinion on when life begins and abortion, however, where they differ remarkably
is that Ryan disregards the duty to separate religious beliefs form a decisions
in a secular nation while Biden upholds it. America is a secular nation and no
president or elected official should be making decisions that affect all of
America on the bias of their religious beliefs. This is an incredibly difficult
thing to ask of any religious person, which is why Joe Biden is such a
noteworthy politician. He upholds the true values of America.
Hey sis, great post. I agree with you. I also think there are appropriate and inappropriate ways for a religious politician to allow their faith to inform their policy. For instance, I wouldn't have any problem with a politician saying something like "One of the values I learned from X religion, and that I think is a universal value, is that it is very important to take care of the poor. That's why we need to do a better job helping Americans out of poverty." There's nothing wrong with faith being a specific influencer of universal values, things that most religions preach, and most non-religious people would agree with: Compassion, respect and dignity for others, taking care of the disadvantaged. Clearly a non-religious person also brings their values to the table. The problem becomes when contested "values" are legislated on people who don't share those values. I think it has to do with how explictly you are using that faith. It might be that your parents taught you to be compassionate in the context of your religion, but if you are quoting the bible about why you should be compassionate in a political context, that's inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that Biden is a remarkable example of a politician saying "Hey, my faith says this, but for me to try to legislate that faith is inappropriate, because that is something forcing my religion on people who don't share it. So I'm not going to."
I think there are so many areas where the church and state are way too entangled in the US. For example, I think it is highly inappropriate that a clergy member can perform a legal marriage. A legal civil union or marriage ought to be a secular matter you take care of with a judge or clerk, and then your clergy member or your friend, or whomever you like can perform whatever religious or personal wedding ceremony you like, but it has no legal standing. It is that way in much of Europe, and I think we need to adopt it. I feel that our conflation of the religious term and ceremony "marriage" with the civil legal benefits of forming a legally protected long term partnership makes it much easier for folks to try to deny marriage rights to everyone. I would love to see the government stop having something legal called marriage, and just have something legal called civil unions, with the same rights as marriage now, and leave marriage up to two people, their religion or lack thereof, and their community.
(Sorry if my comment is rambling.) Love,
Care
I really enjoyed this post and could not agree more with you and Caroline's comment. I think "separation of church and state" has just become a term rather than an action. If more politicians had the viewpoint Biden does, our government would be in a much better place. When we have such an abundance of religions to choose from, politicians cannot administer legislation on a particular religion....first, how do you determine which religion is the best or makes the most sense? and second, you would be excluding such huge numbers of our nation in doing so. I was actually thinking about this the other day when I received a notice that my poling location was now located in a church rather than a library...maybe it is just a location...but I just find it a bit inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteI did not even think of marriage in this context until Caroline brought it up above, and I think that is a perfect example. If marriage did not carry as many religious connotations as it does now, I think people would have a much easier time with same-sex marriage. Putting religion aside, how can the government argue against same-sex marriage?
After yesterday's debate I found this article that I thought you might find interesting: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2012/10/social-justice-catholics-versus-pro-life-catholics-cant-we-have-it-both-ways.
ReplyDeleteIt discusses the point about "social justice" versus "pro-life" Catholics. Biden would be the leading example of the "social justice" in his Democratic fight to help the poor. Although, I find it hard for one to separate their religion from their political views, I don't disagree with you that separation of church and state is the ideal form of government. I think in a perfect world it would be the case. But as Ryan said, I think it is impossible to make decisions without one another. I also think we need to recognize that we are not a secular nation. As much as we pretend to be, we are not. We are founded in Christian roots. The Social Shutter's comment about same-sex marriage is a perfect example. Marriage shouldn't be a legal term at all. Marriage is a religious sacrament. I think we should all be in civil unions, man and woman, man and man, etc. We need to eliminate the religious aspect from it and turn it into an entirely legal situation in order to be fair and equal. Not just for those that want same sex marriage but for any situation. As you argued in class, you don't want another religion imposing on your rights, than ideally all religious material would be removed from our government. Unfortunately, I think we are too far down a non-secular path to entirely eliminate it. And as Shelby argued in class, Democracy is based on what the majority wants. If the majority is X religion and the people want those views reflected in the government, than it will be.
I really admire Joe Biden for this. Being Catholic, he echoes how I feel about the subject of abortion. I don't personally believe in it as an option for myself, but I do know that it is a option that should not be taken away from people who need it.
ReplyDelete