Posted on 04/10/2011 2:06:09 PM PDT by Caleb1411
For some Americans, as for the Founding Fathers, the separation of church and state means that the government and religious bodies ought not to exert power over the other’s areas of legitimate authority. To others it means that religiously informed policy proposals may not become the laws of the secular government. So, on this meaning, a law that prohibits embryo-destructive research would violate the separation of church and state, since (it is assumed) such a law reflects a sanctity-of-life ethic derived exclusively from a theological tradition.
Notice that the latter understanding is concerned not with the actual content of the religious citizen’s policy proposal or with whether or not he has offered a cogent, rationally defensible argument. This metaphysical exclusionary rule bars these proposals without regard for the quality of the cases offered for them. Their secular contraries are not subjected to this philosophical apartheid, even though they offer answers to the same questions and rely on beliefs no less contested than their so-called religious counterparts.
Consider embryo-destruction research. One side claims that the embryonic human being is a full-fledged member of the human community who is identical to his postnatal self and thus possesses the same moral worth and intrinsic dignity throughout its existence. The other side denies this, arguing that embryonic human beings lack some characteristic or property that would make them moral persons and therefore subject to the usual prohibitions against homicide.
Although the religious citizen is motivated by what his theological tradition teaches, that tradition is itself a consequence of an extended argument over time, no different in character than its secular counterpart. For the secularist’s position is shaped by certain inherited beliefs acquired during his academic and cultural formation that are central to his intellectual tradition. These beliefs in metaphysics (nominalism), epistemology (scientism), and religion (subjectivism) are, like the believer’s beliefs, the result of an extended argument over time.
In Good and Bad Ways to Think About Religion and Politics, the Lutheran scholar Robert Benne provides a clear and compelling brief for the religious citizen and the ecclesial community to which he belongs. Director of the Center for Religion and Society at Roanoke College, he offers Christians and their detractors a way of thinking about religion and politics that addresses some of the concerns that both believers and unbelievers have expressed over the past three decades since the ascendancy of the “Religious Right.”
Benne distinguishes two positions on the relationship between religion and politics—separationism and fusionism—and argues Christians ought to reject both. As for the first, there are at least two varieties, one secular and one religious.
One sort—championed by writers as diverse as Richard Dawkins, Andrew Sullivan, and Damon Linker—views the participation of religious citizens in the formation of policy as deleterious to democratic liberalism, if the policies these citizens propose have their genesis in their religious beliefs. Benne shows that to actualize this prescription would limit religious liberty in ways inconsistent with the promise of the American founding. For the Founders understood church–state separation as separating the state from the institutional church and not sequestering religion from politics. Moreover, contemporary separationists are notoriously selective when they lament the mixing of religion and politics, for they rarely if ever decry the political activism of liberal Christians in mainline denominations who almost always agree with the left wing of the Democratic Party.
The other sort of separationist is usually a devout Christian who believes that the Church’s involvement in politics will corrupt its character and thus undermine or make more difficult its duty to save and nourish souls. Baptists in the tradition of the late J. M. Dawson (1879–1973) have been strong proponents of this view. This separationist often cites historical cases in which Christian churches have compromised their witness in order to curry favor from the government.
Benne sees this as a legitimate concern. Nevertheless, he argues, because Christianity teaches that God is sovereign over all creation, including political and social institutions, and because the gospel requires us to love our neighbors and to will their good, we must engage the political realm. Christianity is a knowledge tradition that properly informs us about the good, the true, and the beautiful in every facet of human existence.
While separationists offer a theory of how religion and politics ought to interact, fusionists practice their faith with little theoretical reflection. For that reason, Benne’s account of fusionism is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Fusionists connect their political beliefs and/or cultural affiliations and the teachings of their faith. They fail to distinguish positions that seem to be close to obvious entailments of Christian belief (e.g., male–female marriage, pro-life on abortion) and positions over which Christians of goodwill may disagree (e.g., whether a particular war is just, the existence and scope of the welfare state, school-sponsored prayer in public schools, or whether America or another nation is guided by direct providence).
Some Christians fuse ethnic solidarity and patriotism with their theological traditions, sometimes fomenting the sorts of violence we have seen in places like Bosnia and Northern Ireland. Domestically, some left-leaning Christians, though properly concerned about the plight of the poor, insist that some form of socialism is the only just economic system. Some right-leaning Christians issue “Christian” policy pronouncements that range from opposing abortion to supporting the war in Iraq. It is one thing to claim scriptural support for the unborn’s personhood; it is quite another to suggest that the Bible has a definitive position on global warming or food stamps.
Benne proposes an alternative to separationism and fusionism: critical engagement. He derives from the central claims of Christianity about the nature of God, creation, salvation, and man several politically relevant principles and explains how those principles may be applied given the historical, political, national, and social situations in which an ecclesial community may find itself.
So, for example, a Christian, based on the central claims of his faith, has good reason to believe that the unborn from conception is a moral person and thus his neighbor. Nevertheless, he may have a difficult time placing that belief in our laws if he lives in a society in which most of its citizens cannot “see” the unborn’s personhood. In that case, the Christian, relying on the principle of prudence, may opt for more modest attempts at shaping policy that provide a means to teach his compatriots about the sanctity of human life (as well as to protect as many innocent persons as possible). So, he and his church may support a partial-birth-abortion ban, since it requires that their compatriots confront this gruesome procedure and what it does to a being that seems obviously to be one of us.
Although this is a small book, it is packed with real insight. Benne wisely navigates between two extremes while remaining always mindful that, though the Christian is a citizen of two kingdoms, it is only in one of them that he can find the eternal source of all that could possibly be good and true in the other.
Francis J. Beckwith is professor of philosophy at Baylor University and a resident scholar at Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion.
Pushing for one does not mean forestalling on the other. It means doing what you can to stop the slaughter. If you know a full out ban on all abortions will be rejected it does not mean you stop arguing for a ban on some or on additional restrictions. All the while making it a point to try and move public opinion to pro life beliefs. You accomplish what you can while putting the means in place to accomplish what you must.
Should we not push for example requiring ultra sounds because it does not call for a full ban on abortion?
We are in a battle each bit of ground we gain means the enemy must yield. But just like in all wars there is important work done away from the battlefield. This is mainly getting those who are on the sidelines to truly understand why abortion is wrong so that they join the battle. The battle is not weakened because some work behind the frontlines.
Also I am curious how would you argue to someone who believes that abortion is about the right to choose as guaranteed in the Constitution? What would be your springboard for challenging this belief? How would you do so without appeal to religion?
The idea of playing in their ball park by approaching the abortion issue from their perspective of womans rights is just the wrong way to go about this. It's a privilege to bring a child into this world.
The right woman have is to say no to intercourse when it is well known babies come from such an act. It is a no brain-er.
Until the pro-life movement addresses these basics as the point of choice....all the rest is simply furthering the “rights” woman believe have been infringed on them or not.
Look how the debate on this recent Economic Bill went down. Woman were going to die, kids were going to starve, and on and on because they used “rights as their mouthpiece...it wasn't about rights...but it is used heavily on everything today. Consequences, decisions, reason and thought beforehand are rare to be seen. Government cannot dictate morality no matter how it's approached....people will do as they will regardless. The foundation is not "prolife beliefs"....it is changing the hearts and minds thru Christ so they can see the truth. Without that we're just painting a picture.
Ask an atheist how he/she knows right from wrong without religious convictions. Some things are a moral given. Murder is wrong. But no one in the media or academia or on the left talks about abortion in those terms. Change the language BACK to what it actually is. Murder versus life.
Is it wrong to murder a three year old child? no one except a certifiable lunatic would answer no. The terms have got to be stark and real and serious. A fetus is a child...not a flea.
There are other ways because I have done it. time constraints right now, but I’ll be back.
“Change the language”
Ye, yes, yes!!!! For too long we have let the other isede frame the language of the debate. That goes for abortion, homosexual behavior and many other questions of public policy.
“The idea of playing in their ball park by approaching the abortion issue from their perspective of womans rights is just the wrong way to go about this. It’s a privilege to bring a child into this world.”
That is not what I advocate. I advocate changing that perspective. The question is how do you approach them in order to accomplish this?
By distinguishing the difference between a right and a priviledge, which those lines are often times blurred terribly, just as we see happening throughout political and moral issues.
It's like Obama saying, "it was a mistake" when he previously voted against raising the debt ceiling. Rather than making it personal decision by saying "I" was wrong".
Using 'It' seperated the deed from himself...as if it somehow just happened rather than a decisions he made. If he had said he was wrong then there has to be a right, which would play into those voting for this ...which he wants to avoid being on "their" side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.