Separation of __________ and state?
More columns
written by Laramie:
written by Laramie:
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
Laramie Boyd
The Spectator
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
A place for intelligent readers
founded 2004 by ron cruger
The next presidential campaign will again bring up the issue of "To what extent should the force of one's office
be used to push for legislation in the direction of their religious beliefs?" I wonder if the same question should be asked regarding,
in addition to religion, sexual orientation, financial status, gender, or even race. In other words, should a person's beliefs or
biological makeup be a legitimate criteria for what they should be allowed to strive for if elected to office? There is an amendment
"respecting an establishment of religion" and "the free exercise thereof", which has been interpreted as the need for separation of
church and state. Would it be likewise reasonable that there should be amendments targeting separation of sexual orientation and state,
separation of financial position and state, and even separation of gender and of race, and state.
The First Amendment, in theory of course, denies a president freedom to propose, or even support, legislation that would benefit his particular religious view, if such support was based solely on his belief in that religious leanings. Could the same restriction be put in place if a president were to support legislation giving special rights to the gay community just because, say, he was gay, or a family member was gay, even though he felt it was legislation that was not good for the country in general? Or suppose a wealthy president fails to support a tax increase on the basis that he feels he's taxed enough, while believing full well that the increase would benefit the country? I would hope we could all see that the fallout from this kind of governing could be disastrous. Imagine that President Obama gets legislation passed that is prejudicial in benefitting black citizens only, for the simple reason that he is a black man, and not because it's good government, or worse, if he is otherwise opposed to the law. Would a woman president be apt to look for legislation to improve on the fight for total equality for women, just because she was a woman, and not necessarily because she also thought it was the right thing to do? Maybe the question should be asked, "Is religious intervention in government decision making potentially any more dangerous to the country than that of decisions based on one's sexual preferences or financial position, race or gender?" The other question raised is, "Are there any decisions we make, or actions that we take, that are not biased in some form and based basically on events we had little or no control over. To be black, female, gay, or having been indoctrinated politically from an early age, these are things that determine our prejudices. No need to look for candidates for offices at any level that have no predispositions or agendas to accomplish. Apparently the founding fathers felt that of all the lobbies in Washington, religious influence on government might harm the country the most. I wonder if that's still true today.
The First Amendment, in theory of course, denies a president freedom to propose, or even support, legislation that would benefit his particular religious view, if such support was based solely on his belief in that religious leanings. Could the same restriction be put in place if a president were to support legislation giving special rights to the gay community just because, say, he was gay, or a family member was gay, even though he felt it was legislation that was not good for the country in general? Or suppose a wealthy president fails to support a tax increase on the basis that he feels he's taxed enough, while believing full well that the increase would benefit the country? I would hope we could all see that the fallout from this kind of governing could be disastrous. Imagine that President Obama gets legislation passed that is prejudicial in benefitting black citizens only, for the simple reason that he is a black man, and not because it's good government, or worse, if he is otherwise opposed to the law. Would a woman president be apt to look for legislation to improve on the fight for total equality for women, just because she was a woman, and not necessarily because she also thought it was the right thing to do? Maybe the question should be asked, "Is religious intervention in government decision making potentially any more dangerous to the country than that of decisions based on one's sexual preferences or financial position, race or gender?" The other question raised is, "Are there any decisions we make, or actions that we take, that are not biased in some form and based basically on events we had little or no control over. To be black, female, gay, or having been indoctrinated politically from an early age, these are things that determine our prejudices. No need to look for candidates for offices at any level that have no predispositions or agendas to accomplish. Apparently the founding fathers felt that of all the lobbies in Washington, religious influence on government might harm the country the most. I wonder if that's still true today.