Quote:
Originally Posted by CaleVinson  Ah yes, good catch - I'll add a note to remind me.
Do you need separation of church and state, *if* you have the other principles in place though? For example, a church couldn't lobby for the teaching of creationism in schools, because that would run foul of everyone's right to a certain level of education, and, given that education is compulsory, would also violate the principle that you don't have a right to action your moral stances on others. Conversely, if a religious group ran for and was successful in taking office, but still held to the above principles, would that be a problem?
Sorry to be such a PITA Brenda, but I have a particular interest in the minimal set - otherwise after five pages of this we'll have 478 "core principles".  And I'd really like to be able to use a minimal set in other debates, though of course it needs to be accurate too, and I could well be missing something here. |
Well, it really depends on who is doing the religion. The problem is that if you don't formally state that religion is not part of the government, it will become so. It's human nature to mix it all up.
Even then, if the religion in question was tolerant in nature, it might not be an issue.
But if it's the kind of religion that has, as one of its basic principles, that everyone must conform to it, you now have on your hands an institution willing to challenge the government for the right to BE the government. That's when the problems start.
The most minimalistic way of saying this would be that no private faction should be permitted to make membership in that faction, or adherence to its private lifestyle, a prerequisite for the full rights of citizenship. Because when they do this, they are beginning to become a law unto themselves.
So it becomes very important to be vigilant about the definitions of citizenship and law. This won't come naturally in societies that have any sizable faction with an authoritarian impulse.