Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not possible for the state to be neutral with respect to religion. Why? Because religion makes truth claims. To be neutral towards those claims is, in effect, to be against them.
Let's say you have to be somewhere at 6:00pm, and three men tell you what they believe to be the time of day. One says it's 5:00pm, the other 4:45pm, and the other 5:30pm. You want to be neutral and don't want to offend anyone, but you don't have a watch and can't afford to miss this meeting. So you have to choose. Neutrality is impossible. By choosing the time Joe gave you, you have rejected the claims of Sam and George. Presumably you have some reason for trusting Joe over the others - perhaps he's a relative, or a friend you've known since childhood, and he has a good track record.
The state must make the same kinds of choices with respect to religion. Naturally, the state is going to prefer, almost sub-consciously, the religion with which it is historically associated and the religion of those it serves. Religion and morality are not the same thing, but it's true that most people derive their morality from their religious faith. Since the state must make laws on the basis of morality, it will always favor certain religious views and discriminate against others.
It's not possible for the state to be neutral with respect to religion. Why? Because religion makes truth claims. To be neutral towards those claims is, in effect, to be against them.
Let's say you have to be somewhere at 6:00pm, and three men tell you what they believe to be the time of day. One says it's 5:00pm, the other 4:45pm, and the other 5:30pm. You want to be neutral and don't want to offend anyone, but you don't have a watch and can't afford to miss this meeting. So you have to choose. Neutrality is impossible. By choosing the time Joe gave you, you have rejected the claims of Sam and George. Presumably you have some reason for trusting Joe over the others - perhaps he's a relative, or a friend you've known since childhood, and he has a good track record.
The state must make the same kinds of choices with respect to religion. Naturally, the state is going to prefer, almost sub-consciously, the religion with which it is historically associated and the religion of those it serves. Religion and morality are not the same thing, but it's true that most people derive their morality from their religious faith. Since the state must make laws on the basis of morality, it will always be seen as favoring certain religious views and discriminating against others.
It's not possible for the state to be neutral with respect to religion. Why? Because religion makes truth claims. To be neutral towards those claims is, in effect, to be against them.
Teach me, ovcatto. No analogy is perfect, but please show me how this one is "false" or inapplicable.
Better yet, why don't you offer an alternative analogy? This should be fun.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
