Speaker Johnson: Separation of church, state ‘a misnomer’
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pushed back Tuesday on the belief that there should be separation between church and state on the U.S., arguing that the founding fathers wanted faith to be a “big part…
You're viewing a single thread.
Set aside for the moment that the Founding Fathers absolutely wanted there to be a separation between church and state because they had just come from a land (England) where the ruler (the King) was the leader of the church (Church of England) and where they saw the abuses this caused.
Would Johnson and all the other "no separation" folks really be fine with the government meddling with their faith? After all, if there's no separation between church and state then not only can the church influence the state, but the state can influence the church. Get rid of the separation and the federal government could decide which holidays you observe and in which ways. It could proclaim what the contents of the prayer books are and when/how you pray.
Would they be fine with all this?
Of course, they assume that they will be writing the rules, but would they accept it if someone else was? Perhaps I, a Jew, would declare that they can't eat pig products. (In reality, I'd never impose my religious beliefs on others, but let's say I did hypothetically speaking.) Perhaps a Muslim Government Religious Committee Member would add a few rules. As would a Buddhist. Heck, let's get atheists and satanists involved as well. I'm sure they would love to write some "religious rules" that the Christians nationalists would need to follow. Would Johnson and company happily go along with this because "no separation between church and state?"
Would they be fine with all this?
And in today's lesson, we will learn the term "double standards": yes they would be fine with this because they think they are the state, also they think they are basically god's will and anything contradicting that will be fought tooth and nail. IF they should ever see another religion even approach their level of power, then they will attempt everything in their power to restrict that religion's advances because they were always proponents of a separation of ( at least that other) religion and the state. Any inconsistencies in that worldview are not, as it may seem at first glance (or second [or third and all thereafter]) pure hypocrisy because it's obviously an ENTIRELY different situation when they are affected. As soon as their power is then consolidated again, separation of church and state shouldn't be taken THAT seriously anymore - it's not that important as long as the RIGHT religion is the state...
So…main character syndrome. Isn’t that a prerequisite to register Republican?
As always, they are the one's in power, and therefore assume they'll be the only one's writing the rules.
A better example than pork products might be abortion.
There are literally no Jewish groups that are anywhere near as hard-line on abortion as Christians are. And the pro-life crowd would be quite upset if the laws on abortion were written by either reform or conservative rabbis.
The problem with Mike Johnson's position is that once you get past the basics like "don't murder", religions disagree significantly on the specifics. For example, according to Orthodox Judaism, you must abort a fetus that's threatening the mothers life, while some Christians would call that murder.
There's no such thing as generic "faith based principles" to base a government on; at some point you simply have to pick which religions' principles you'll enshrine.
The reason for the abortion policy in Judaism is that Judaism sees the fetus as merely "potential life" and part of the woman's body until it is born. There are Jewish groups fighting against the Republicans' restrictive abortion bans because they are based on Christianity's views of the life of the fetus and infringe on Jewish views.
you must abort a fetus that’s threatening the mothers life, while some Christians would call that murder.
If the mother dies and the baby hasn't been born yet, then two people have died. Aborting a life threatening fetus is the only sane course of action, as you are not ending one life, you're saving those who can still be saved.
There's a bunch of different kinds of ethics. That's a very consequentialist, pragmatic take. I mean, I agree that it's the moral action here, but your argument for it is very consequentialist.
Some religions take a more deontological view of ethics, where actions are right or wrong based on the action itself, rather than on the consequence it has.
For example, in Judaism, if a group of Nazis says "give us one of you to shoot or we'll shoot you all", then you're supposed to let your entire group get shot because killing an innocent to save your own life is wrong (though killing the nazis would be acceptable because they're aggressors in this situation). It sounds like you would call that insane, because the whole group dies instead of just one member.
Without separation, the government could impose and anti hypocrisy clause when people claim religious freedom -- if the person claiming it has demonstrably and willfully gone against their religion's rules, they can't claim religious freedom for a different rule.
They would just change the argument again to "the founding fathers were Christian they had every intention of allowing Christian religion to inform government decisions. The founding fathers never were Muslim or Jewish nor did they enact any policy that originated from their respective religious books. So based on that history we only allow Christian laws to be made, anything else is unconstitutional."
/Vomit
They were deists though...
I would love to see what the rules are after all the major religions cooperate and build a new world order. I’d imagine it’d be something like “everyone is vegan now. Be nice to everyone. Except the Roma”.
