- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Some people are always quick to drag out the "separation of church and state" idea, but very few of them know what it originally meant and what it was intended to do.
The term originated in the United States. As they were building the institutions of government, certain people began pushing for an "established" church - that is, to declare a certain Christian denomination the state church of the United States (like the Anglican church in England, the Lutheran in Germany, etc.) IIRC, the front-running denomination was the Congregational church.
This alarmed a lot of people - many immigrants to the States had come there for religious freedom. Baptists, in particular, were afraid that the persecution they had been facing in Britain and continental Europe up to this time would continue if the Congregational church was "established." Overseas, Baptists had been prevented from meeting together and preaching publicly because they were "noncomformists" - they were not licenced by the state church. Back then, in Britain, the government granted preaching licences like today's governments grant driver's licences. So faced with the same situation in the New World, Baptists protested, saying that the role of government should not be to prescribe in matters of religious practice, but to guard free speech and freedom of association so that all religious groups would have the ability to practice without interference.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a Baptist association a letter assuring them that there would be no establishment of religion in the United States. This letter was the origin of the term, "separation of church and state."
Now, notice what this was intended to accomplish, IN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT. The issue was not religious activity in government institutions - it was a given that people of faith would be active in politics. Rather, it was government interference in religious affairs and regulation of religious worship - the spectre of government regulation of religious bodies and churches, and licencing of preachers.
Or, in other words, separation of church and state was never intended to protect government from religion. It was intended to safeguard religion from government.
Think of it this way. Why are churches tax-exempt? Because of separation of church and state. If churches were to lose their tax-exempt status, they would be taxpaying institutions like any other, and thus entitled to make political contributions and engage in political activity.
So those rabid anti-religious types who see tax exemptions of churches as some kind of governmental sponsorship of religion, if they were to succeed in squashing these privileges, would usher in an age of religious political activity. Imagine the effects on the body politic of church donations - worth billions of dollars a year - began being funneled to political activism. Since most religious institutions are conservative by nature, take a wild guess at which political parties would benefit most from this idea.
Where am I going with this? Well, separation of church and state was NEVER intended to "establish" atheism as a state religion. It was, rather, intended to enshrine in law the respect that the state must have for religious belief.
And in that view, a military drill movement that removes headdress as a mark of respect for a religious ceremony is not, and never can be, a mark of submission to that religious system. Rather, it is a recognition that said religious practice is a right respected and defended by the state.
The people removing their headdress are not being asked to pray. Rather, the institution of the Canadian Forces is expressing, through the medium of ceremonial drill, the State's respect for religious freedom.
The term originated in the United States. As they were building the institutions of government, certain people began pushing for an "established" church - that is, to declare a certain Christian denomination the state church of the United States (like the Anglican church in England, the Lutheran in Germany, etc.) IIRC, the front-running denomination was the Congregational church.
This alarmed a lot of people - many immigrants to the States had come there for religious freedom. Baptists, in particular, were afraid that the persecution they had been facing in Britain and continental Europe up to this time would continue if the Congregational church was "established." Overseas, Baptists had been prevented from meeting together and preaching publicly because they were "noncomformists" - they were not licenced by the state church. Back then, in Britain, the government granted preaching licences like today's governments grant driver's licences. So faced with the same situation in the New World, Baptists protested, saying that the role of government should not be to prescribe in matters of religious practice, but to guard free speech and freedom of association so that all religious groups would have the ability to practice without interference.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a Baptist association a letter assuring them that there would be no establishment of religion in the United States. This letter was the origin of the term, "separation of church and state."
Now, notice what this was intended to accomplish, IN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT. The issue was not religious activity in government institutions - it was a given that people of faith would be active in politics. Rather, it was government interference in religious affairs and regulation of religious worship - the spectre of government regulation of religious bodies and churches, and licencing of preachers.
Or, in other words, separation of church and state was never intended to protect government from religion. It was intended to safeguard religion from government.
Think of it this way. Why are churches tax-exempt? Because of separation of church and state. If churches were to lose their tax-exempt status, they would be taxpaying institutions like any other, and thus entitled to make political contributions and engage in political activity.
So those rabid anti-religious types who see tax exemptions of churches as some kind of governmental sponsorship of religion, if they were to succeed in squashing these privileges, would usher in an age of religious political activity. Imagine the effects on the body politic of church donations - worth billions of dollars a year - began being funneled to political activism. Since most religious institutions are conservative by nature, take a wild guess at which political parties would benefit most from this idea.
Where am I going with this? Well, separation of church and state was NEVER intended to "establish" atheism as a state religion. It was, rather, intended to enshrine in law the respect that the state must have for religious belief.
And in that view, a military drill movement that removes headdress as a mark of respect for a religious ceremony is not, and never can be, a mark of submission to that religious system. Rather, it is a recognition that said religious practice is a right respected and defended by the state.
The people removing their headdress are not being asked to pray. Rather, the institution of the Canadian Forces is expressing, through the medium of ceremonial drill, the State's respect for religious freedom.
