[John D Harris]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:


I didn't mean to imply that the state was being protected from the church. Rather I see it as a necessary seperation of two potent forces that have proven over time to draw the worst sort of people when mixed. Indeed the intent was to provide a state that was free of the religous prosecution that many of the time were escaping. In order for this basis to be satisfied, I find in unlikely that a scenario could be devised that would see the state endorse a concept like "good" and "evil" (the religous context of course... a decidedly Western concept) in a way that was consistant with the likely intent of the constitution. Perhaps that's why the courts have taken such a strict line in interpretation... anything less would be a slippery slope, much more open to the particular prejudice of the judge(s).

Personally I see the interpretation which is currently gaining favor (to uphold the rights of all to practice in their own way... as long as it's not sanctioned by any public body) as a reasonable balance between the sides. What I extremely dislike is our president using christian terminology when discussing groups of people that don't necessarily follow our belief system. It feels munipulative and again I think it's designed, not heartfelt. As a person I support his right to say anything he wants... but he's also the President of this country, and as such he reflects on us... and right now I feel he's not showing us in the best light. Perhaps he felt the need to fight fundamentalist "fire with fire", but in doing so he's lowered himself to pretty close to the level the other side is at... listen to the propeganda from both sides... some of it was hard to tell apart!

---

I'd agree with the vast majority of what you said there. Although I think the terms "good" and "evil" while used extensivly(sp?) in religion they are not Christian terms. I'd agree with your point if President Bush had used the terms "Saints" & "Sinners".