Writer's Block: Church & State
People complain that the problem is with church encroaching upon state, but I think that is far from the truth. My opinion is that state is beginning to impede on the freedoms of religion and that state is forcing us to abandon our religious rights. There are several examples of this, and the most prominent is prayer in schools. If you think about it, when is it ever okay to tell somebody that they CANNOT pray? I know that people want to be sensitive to other religions, but wouldn't hearing different prayers from different faiths bring about of knowledge of what they really are? There was an instance in my school where people wanted to create a faith-based club in school and there were refused while an atheist sect managed to get the same thing. There was yet another instance where a group of Christians would gather around the flag pole before school started and had a group prayer, but someone complained about it and away it went. It is opposition toward religious thinkers.
Another is the fact that state is trying to hard to keep intelligent design out of schools. I don't see what the big deal is. You are not trying to convert anyone to your way of thinking. If you were to teach such a thing in schools, it would be interesting to talk about the many beliefs of other religions. (If parents don't like that, there could be a sheet they could sign so their child isn't in that class). To completely refute a view that many people hold simply because it hasn't been "proven" is to allow ignorance. I don't care how many times evolutionists have said it: EVOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETELY WITHOUT A DOUBT PROVEN. The keep bringing forth evidence that is shown either to be tampered with, fake, or inconclusive. There is a reason why it is STILL called "the THEORY of evolution."
Another reason why I think state is forcing itself upon religion is the new proposition in my state. There is a proposition where they want to redefine marriage in the Arizonian constitution. A "yes" vote retains the original definition of "man and woman" while a "no" vote erases that original line. So, say for example, everyone voted "no" on it. What would happen? People who would be denied marriage, because it was same-sex, could rightfully sue and harass churches because they would deny them marriage. A church is an organization that is protected by the constitution to express their beliefs and fulfill them as long as it doesn't impede on the free will of others. By voting on this, people will begin to look for ways that state can force church to do whatever it wishes. It is not like gay people cannot have a form of marriage. They CAN get civil unions, but for some reason that is not enough. People want state to force church to do whatever they want. Marriage is a Judeo-Christian tradition that stretches back for thousands of years and it is viewed as sacred by those who believe in it. To allow state to go in and change that is a gross abuse of power.
Church has not been impeding on anything. They have not been stretching their power over state. If anything, they have been trying to reclaim it. If you notice, it is people who are protesting for the right to pray in schools again and to hold their beliefs as they were originally taught. To allow state to impede on church is not only unconstitutional, it is wrong.
-PJ