OCR Text |
Show (FOCUS 72 . by MarkGustavson Mo, You CAHT KetP M"K- x ' He PZogAeiY beloags to Sayeote. ) - ; ' - f " never had a chance to make any moral decisions. Given the historical behavior of most churches and given the doubtful relationship between religions and religiosity or, for that matter, the unclear logical correlation between the origin. of . l moral rules and the existence of churches, that to guard the freedom of the individual and to promote the general advancement of the human race, we should firmly assert that there should be an irrevocable and absolute separation of the domains of the Church and State. v n any discussion concerning the ralationship between Church and State one is likely to hear a number of varied responses. From the True Believer will come the assertion that since he knows the Truth, he, and others of his persuasion, have a right even an obligation, to influence in-fluence the political sphere with the aim of converting every one to the True Religion. Those of more moderate persuasion will say that there are many dangers in such activity, their assertion founded on a reflective study of the history of organized religious L institutions. Both of these possible responses, while the latter is certainly more in keeping with historical perspective, ignore the question of whether or not any church has anything to offer that cannot be gained from any other source. While it may well be the case that most religions do preach moral codes that may result in the betterment bet-terment of society, unless one maintains, through some peculiar arguments, that religion (any will do) is the sole source of ethical rules, it is possible to maintain that we could very well do without religions. It makes very little sense to maintain the existence of any religion when any ethical virtue it might have possessed can be inculcated in-culcated in a far less noxious manner by general public education. Since the thrust of Renaissance humanism, when it became clear that one need not necessarily be of the True Faith to be successful, to love one's wife (or whoever), to have keen philosophical insight, or to be a great artist, it is riot at all , , . ,,.,., ...-.,.,., clear that any religion can have much of a claim to anything, since the emphasis on the eternal rewards that one might gain by ascetic behavior have been, thankfully, thank-fully, replaced by a more rational concern in making this life more dignified and joyful. In point of fact, every significant advancement scientific, philosophic, philo-sophic, sociological, artistic has found its most vehement opposition opposi-tion from the pulpit and pew. Rather than viewing religions as any great source of ethical behavior or as the champion of honest and open human scholarship, we should recognize churches as the opponents of Man and the proponent of God (assuming, of course), rather than the other way around. I am not advocating any sort of organized or even de facto attempt to do away with religions on the grounds that they don't serve much of any purpose. First of all, I am not at all certain of the absolute accuracy of my views, but more importantly, I do not think it correct for anyone, who thinks heshe has the Right Answer, to set about abolishing any conflicting institutions that happen to oppose his efforts. If we did that, then we would fall into the trap that has made the history of religion so nauseating: we would be creating an Inquisition. Only this time, the roles of the oppressor and the oppressed would be reversed and it would indeed be difficult to determine if either side had any claim whatsoever to ethical superiority. What can be said of the problem ' of ChurchState separation? Initially, it is not impossible that church and scripture may be quite irrelevant to the accomplishments that Man can achieve under his own steam. Secondly, we should be cognizant of the role religion has played in the history of Man: we must always pay reverence to our past, for we are its children. In any free-thinking appraisal of the history of religion, we ought to recognize that if Man is to be free, then that fight for liberty will demand a heavy toll, for if Man is no longer burdened with the trappings of organized theology, he will also be divorced from the womb comforts of such institutions. in-stitutions. This does not mean that because it may be said that religions may be superfluous that one ought not to act in a religious manner, if one means by that that one should keep his promises, that truth-telling is a virtue, that one should treat people as ends and not as means. In summary, it can be maintained that we should carefully read the history texts and realize that even if it were the case that any one religion had sole and exclusive rights to Heaven, and even if it were the case that ethics and morals did have their first advocation ad-vocation in religion, it still should be maintained that no church should have the opportunity, nor should it seek the chance, to force its will upon any group. If it were to do so, then it would be destroying one of the tenets held dear to most religions: it is not obvious that any man can be held morally praiseworthy or blameworthy if he |