Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Seperation of Church and State

Options
  • 03-01-2008 9:56pm
    #1
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭


    Hey folks,

    Just wondering what ye Christians (of varying hues and intensities :)) think of the idea of seperation of Church and State.

    If the State is saturated with Christian doctrine and morality, then that would probably be a good thing if you're an evangelical Christian, because it's maximum exposure to the teachings of Jesus, and so probably max salvation :)

    But then I'm sure there's the Christians among you who have no desire to impose your religion on others, and so would like the State to remain secular.

    Another thing to consider is that if the State is not secular, there's always the possibility that another religion may become dominant (say with the help of immigration), and so completely contrary beliefs may be propagated.

    Presumably Christians consider morality derived from the Bible to be the ideal way to lead your life, and, one would think, your country. So why would you not want an Taoiseach to refer to the Bible when considering legislation?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    A number of points in there.

    First of all, seperation of church and state has always meant to me that 'no one church institution should be running the state.' ie. RC, Cof England, Lutheran, presbyterian, etc.

    There is a group in Ontario that wishes to run itself by Shari'a Law. One law for all others but Shari'a law for them, doesn't work, can't work.

    In having said that, I would rather live under a rule of law that has a basis for that law. In Canada it was always the Bible. When judges made their ruling they reverted to teh Bible as the source of law in Canada.

    That is no longer the case, it is now all up to the constitution of canada and tehBill of human rights were all rulings go. This document can change and will change, also different judges have vastly different interpretations of what th elaw says as they read 'into' the constitution a sopposed to read from it and to try and determine what the lawmakers were trying to accomplish. We now have a country ruled by unelected judges. Not such a good situation.

    Not good because who determines what is right and wrong for the society and whose rules are we living under today?

    I'd rather have a consistent guideline as teh source of laws and therby behaviour to live by.


  • Options
    #3
    cornbb
    Registered Users Posts: 6,790 ✭✭✭cornbb


    Hmm, I haven't felt compelled to reply to a thread in any of the religion forums before.
    BrianCalgary wrote: »
    That is no longer the case, it is now all up to the constitution of canada and tehBill of human rights were all rulings go. This document can change and will change, also different judges have vastly different interpretations of what th elaw says as they read 'into' the constitution a sopposed to read from it and to try and determine what the lawmakers were trying to accomplish. We now have a country ruled by unelected judges. Not such a good situation.

    Laws need to change and do change along with the changes in the societies they govern. Our ideas of morality change with time (not all that drastically, mind) and different moralities, technologies, demographic changes etc require updated laws. Besides, haven't Christians' interpretations of the Bible also changed with the times?

    I don't see how judges frequently have "vastly different" interpretations. They are not elected directly but they are appointed by elected representatives. I'm under the impression that laws/constitutions are generally very specific, both in the spirit and the letter of how they describe the rules, and the need for interpretation is the exception rather than the rule. Of course interpretation needs to happen everywhere from time to time; language is interpreted, musicians interpret written music, religious types interpret their holy books.
    Not good because who determines what is right and wrong for the society and whose rules are we living under today?

    Well, generally politicians (who, all their flaws aside, are given a mandate to do so by the voting public) do so, or the public do so in referendums. This system is not perfect. But surely it is far better for a society to decide what is right and wrong via the democratic process, rather than have it laid down by an unpopular religious hierarchy with its own agenda?
    I'd rather have a consistent guideline as teh source of laws and therby behaviour to live by.

    The moral codes outlined by most organised religions are hardly consistent.

    Frankly I'd be appalled if you could not see the inherent wrongness in having an entire society be governed by the rules or whims of a single religious minority.


  • Options
    #4
    JCB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JCB


    I'm not particularly opposed to separation of church and state in theory, however, in practice I feel that it leads to a separation of church and society, which I would be particularly opposed to.

    I wonder how far a segregation of church and state would go, examples:
    1) RTE, not broadcasting the angelus - because a state body cannot 'favour' one religion over the next,
    2) Banning religious words like 'crib' from advertising, becuase it has religious connectations,
    3) Banning religious objects from public places, when they create no interferance (sp?), since they *may* cause offense e.g. cribs from hospitals
    4) Banning people from wearing religious objects e.g. muslim headscarves in French schools - which I think is outrageous.
    5) Banning church bells because of sound pollution
    6) Banning all religious advertising/programming from RTE because it might offend
    etc.....
    As you can see some of the above are already in effect.

    Now as to whether church should dictate public policy is slightly different.
    I don't believe one religions rules should be imposed on those of other religions
    E.g. A new religion controls legislature and commands manditory ass whipping for all, every third tuesday.
    In a more realistic case, take contraception in Ireland. I don't see why if you're not a Catholic why you should be stopped using contraception, by law.

    However, take a thorny issue like Abortion or Gay Marriage. The distinction is more blurred for me in that case. I do not wish to see either in our society, since they are detremental to a christian society, yet I don't want democracy infringed either. My view almost turns into a 'saving society from itself' role, which of course, is not what I intend.

    Maybe take Turkey as an example (Though admittedly I know little on the country) Can the secular government respect religious freedoms better than say the French government did vis-a-vis headscarves etccc?

    In one way, the sort of fudge on the issue in Ireland, is a near enough compromise to people on both sides of the argument. However, it is tilting slowly in the direction of less religion in society, which is a pity.


  • Options
    #5
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    Hey folks,

    Just wondering what ye Christians (of varying hues and intensities :)) think of the idea of seperation of Church and State.

    Don't mind it at all.
    If the State is saturated with Christian doctrine and morality, then that would probably be a good thing if you're an evangelical Christian, because it's maximum exposure to the teachings of Jesus, and so probably max salvation :)

    Problem is, that it never works that way. There may very well be pronouncements of Christianity, but practically they always seem to be the opposite. The church are usually just a political power themselves under a vail of 'christianity'.
    But then I'm sure there's the Christians among you who have no desire to impose your religion on others, and so would like the State to remain secular.

    Christs message 'cannot' be imposed on anyone. Religion can. I have every desire to see folk 'accept' Christ, but no desire to see them accept religion. Religion is a bad thing IMO. It has proven in the past to be quite oppressive and contemptuous against who it speaks of. In the case of 'christendom' anyway.
    Another thing to consider is that if the State is not secular, there's always the possibility that another religion may become dominant (say with the help of immigration), and so completely contrary beliefs may be propagated.

    Yeh, maybe. As I said, I don't think Religion getting the shove is a bad thing.
    Presumably Christians consider morality derived from the Bible to be the ideal way to lead your life, and, one would think, your country. So why would you not want an Taoiseach to refer to the Bible when considering legislation?

    Simply because I believe Politics is a dishonest game, so any lip service to Christ is in Vain IMO. Many men 'refer' to the bible with an agenda in mind. Look at George W. Bush or Tony Blair. Both men religious, but both showing themselves un-christian by their works. God told us that we cannot Govern ourselves. He said 'Man will govern itself to injury'. So religion or not, man is lousy at government, and very greedy to boot.

    If abortion, same sex marriage etc is allowed in this country, only those who are not Christian will indulge anyway. I've heard 'christian' groups lobby against Same sex marriage as 'undermining their marriage'. I often think, 'how?'. My marriage is engraved in my heart, not on a civil register.
    The only issue I can see in a secular state is if they enforce a behaviour which goes against my Christianity. Can't think of anything off the top of my head, but there is probably something.


  • Options
    #6
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JCB wrote: »
    I'm not particularly opposed to separation of church and state in theory
    You don't actually appear to be in favor of separation of church and state even in theory, given your complaints about how groups such as the national broadcaster and schools with uniforms handle exceptions for certain religions.

    If a school uniform forbids the wearing of head gear, why is a Muslim girl given an exception for that rule?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    cornbb wrote: »
    Frankly I'd be appalled if you could not see the inherent wrongness in having an entire society be governed by the rules or whims of a single religious minority.

    I would be appalled too. I would be equally appalled if anyone could not see the inherent wrongness in a society being governed by the rules or whims of a religious majority.


  • Options
    #8
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    cornbb wrote: »
    Hmm, I haven't felt compelled to reply to a thread in any of the religion forums before.

    Welcome aboard so. I look forward to seeing many other posts like this.
    cornbb wrote:
    Laws need to change and do change along with the changes in the societies they govern. Our ideas of morality change with time (not all that drastically, mind) and different moralities, technologies, demographic changes etc require updated laws. Besides, haven't Christians' interpretations of the Bible also changed with the times?

    I agree with the first sentence but no the second. Yes laws need to chance slightly for given circumstances. However in relation to morality I believe the one true source was finished upon Paul of Tarsus completing his letters to the various Christian communities. Also I believe that Christ Jesus brought us the principal idea of what is indeed right and wrong. Christians interpretations of the Bible have changed slightly to enormously over the times dependant on what kind of Christian you speak to. In conservative terms it hasn't changed very much at all.
    cornbb wrote:
    The moral codes outlined by most organised religions are hardly consistent.

    Frankly I'd be appalled if you could not see the inherent wrongness in having an entire society be governed by the rules or whims of a single religious minority.

    I really cannot see how you can say that the moral code of Christianity is not consistent. Mind elaborating on this? :confused:


  • Options
    #9
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,153 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Well I guess you could take the example of Christians view on slavery, homosexuality and abortion altering and developing over the years. Some of their views have changed, some have not. Some people changed views, some didn't. Yet you can't honestly claim there is one, true consistent message that has remained constant, that everyone agrees on, that would provide any help in ruling a country. You can't rule a country just based on 'love thy neighbour'.

    Whenever man is involved in the interpretation of something, it will always change depending on his own background, upbringing.


  • Options
    #10
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sangre wrote: »
    You can't rule a country just based on 'love thy neighbour'.

    That's why there are other rules in the New Testament.


  • Options
    #11
    ryoishin
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭ryoishin


    I think there should always be a healthy tension between church and state.

    I dont think there is a specifically Christian moraltiy that that is pushed on the state. I think there is a human morality that both church and state share, with a few differences here and there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Jack Sheehan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭Jack Sheehan


    ryoishin wrote: »
    I think there should always be a healthy tension between church and state.

    I dont think there is a specifically Christian moraltiy that that is pushed on the state. I think there is a human morality that both church and state share, with a few differences here and there.

    Tension is not the right word. Separation, yes but not tension. The state should have a tolerance and respect for all Faiths but absolutely no connection, in my opinion.


  • Options
    #13
    ryoishin
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭ryoishin


    The church itself is a state and is listened to when it speaks. I can always remember when the whole Iraq thing startered and bush was in the Vatican. It was like a school kid going to see the head master or something. But i think when the state and church have a healthy tension then people get to see all sides instead of being lead by the church or state.


  • Options
    #14
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    JCB wrote: »
    I'm not particularly opposed to separation of church and state in theory, however, in practice I feel that it leads to a separation of church and society, which I would be particularly opposed to.
    I wonder how far a segregation of church and state would go, examples:
    1) RTE, not broadcasting the angelus - because a state body cannot 'favour' one religion over the next,

    of course.
    2) Banning religious words like 'crib' from advertising, becuase it has religious connectations,
    6) Banning all religious advertising/programming from RTE because it might offend

    religious advertising is not banned just because it might cause offence its, its banned for the benefit of catholic church so there is no competition.

    3) Banning religious objects from public places, when they create no interferance (sp?), since they *may* cause offense e.g. cribs from hospitals

    Not so much public places but public state buildings would be the issue, removing them would be the would be the most basic church/state separation.
    4) Banning people from wearing religious objects e.g. muslim headscarves in French schools - which I think is outrageous.

    50/50
    5) Banning church bells because of sound pollution
    you
    etc.....
    [/QUOTE]
    BS

    religious people have such lack of clarity over church/state separation. they describe the most basic steps as holocaust.


  • Options
    #15
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ryoishin wrote: »
    The church itself is a state and is listened to when it speaks. I can always remember when the whole Iraq thing started and bush was in the Vatican. It was like a school kid going to see the head master or something. But I think when the state and church have a healthy tension then people get to see all sides instead of being lead by the church or state.

    It's surprising that Bush felt the need to go to the Vatican. Or was this purely a diplomatic reason why he went there?
    lostexpectation wrote:
    Not so much public places but public state buildings would be the issue, removing them would be the would be the most basic church/state separation.

    Just wondering what you would feel about someone having a wooden cross by their bedside in hospital or a Bible. Is that acceptable? How far should we go in that rule. I have a huge issue with that in terms of a principle. People should recognise that we are in a majority Christian state and with that it is going to influence other things (very slightly, but albeit it will affect it). If I was in Jordan or Syria for example (not quite aware of their systems but anyway) I wouldn't object to them having Islamic symbols of their institutions, such as hospitals, schools etc. I don't see why there is such a compulsion to change here.
    lostexpectation wrote:
    religious advertising is not banned just because it might cause offence its, its banned for the benefit of catholic church so there is no competition.

    I don't think the Catholic church need any advertising given the growth figures between 2002 and 2006. However it is a common trend among Christian groups at the minute. Although Islam is rising rather rapidly it's due to it having a small base population, the Catholic Church has a rather large one.


  • Options
    #16
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Just wondering what you would feel about someone having a wooden cross by their bedside in hospital or a Bible. Is that acceptable? How far should we go in that rule. I have a huge issue with that in terms of a principle. People should recognise that we are in a majority Christian state and with that it is going to influence other things (very slightly, but albeit it will affect it). If I was in Jordan or Syria for example (not quite aware of their systems but anyway) I wouldn't object to them having Islamic symbols of their institutions, such as hospitals, schools etc. I don't see why there is such a compulsion to change here.

    If an individual wants to bring in a cross, a Star of David, or a pentagram and display it by their bedside when in hospital then they should be free to do so. Individual freedom to express your faith.

    If a privately funded hospital wants to display statues of Mary all over their property then they are entitled to do so. "You pays your money and you takes your choice."

    If a publicly funded institution want to use my taxes to sponsor a display of religion then I want to protest. I don't care if it is another religion or if it is my own religion - it is wrong.


  • Options
    #17
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's surprising that Bush felt the need to go to the Vatican. Or was this purely a diplomatic reason why he went there?

    67 million reasons - the number of Catholics in the US. The Catholic vote can easily decide any US election so any politician will happily grovel and kiss a few rings. It's quicker than kissing hundreds of babies, and you're less likely to get puke on your jacket.


  • Options
    #18
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    you could get something else on it though :o


  • Options
    #19
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I'm well aware that it would be unfair and counter-productive to repress other religions in favour of my own beliefs. I'd be happy enough to see an official separation of Church and State as long as freedom to display/ practice your own beliefs (within reason) isn't removed within State institutions.


  • Options
    #20
    BrianCalgary
    Registered Users Posts: 3,196 ✭✭✭BrianCalgary


    cornbb wrote: »
    Hmm, I haven't felt compelled to reply to a thread in any of the religion forums before.



    Laws need to change and do change along with the changes in the societies they govern. Our ideas of morality change with time (not all that drastically, mind) and different moralities, technologies, demographic changes etc require updated laws. Besides, haven't Christians' interpretations of the Bible also changed with the times?.
    Laws do need to change from time to time based on circumstances that come about in society. Yet, on what foundation do we base new laws?

    Up until the 50/60's period the laws, in Canada anyway, were based on Biblical principles, now they are based on humanist principles with the individual right in mind as opposed to the overall societal good.
    cornbb wrote: »
    I don't see how judges frequently have "vastly different" interpretations. They are not elected directly but they are appointed by elected representatives. I'm under the impression that laws/constitutions are generally very specific, both in the spirit and the letter of how they describe the rules, and the need for interpretation is the exception rather than the rule. Of course interpretation needs to happen everywhere from time to time; language is interpreted, musicians interpret written music, religious types interpret their holy books..
    Next time one comes up I'll try and let you know. In Canada the Human Rights code protects one aginst discrimination based on race, colour, gender. However our judges read into the act, sexual preference. That is an example of an unelected judge making a decision outside the democratic process and thereby imposing his will and that of teh supreme court on teh rest of the country.

    Let it go to a referendum then we could accept the decision.

    cornbb wrote: »
    Well, generally politicians (who, all their flaws aside, are given a mandate to do so by the voting public) do so, or the public do so in referendums. This system is not perfect. But surely it is far better for a society to decide what is right and wrong via the democratic process, rather than have it laid down by an unpopular religious hierarchy with its own agenda?.

    I don't mind elected politicians making laws, because that is their job. Also politicians will bring their experiential and belief bias into the lawmaking procedure which will be a check against fanatical groups wanting to impose their views, such as a church institution or humanist institution.

    But that doesn't happen in Canada anymore, the unelected Supreme Court of 9 make th edecisions as to whether or not laws are valid.
    cornbb wrote: »
    The moral codes outlined by most organised religions are hardly consistent.

    Frankly I'd be appalled if you could not see the inherent wrongness in having an entire society be governed by the rules or whims of a single religious minority.

    No need to be appaled, I do see the wrongness of one particular group imposing their view on the rest of teh society.


  • Options
    #21
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I'm well aware that it would be unfair and counter-productive to repress other religions in favour of my own beliefs. I'd be happy enough to see an official separation of Church and State as long as freedom to display/ practice your own beliefs (within reason) isn't removed within State institutions.

    It is the "within reason" where you run into trouble.

    The religious person will always believe that their particular religious need is within reason. For example the Sikhs who wanted a separate Garda uniform for them. Muslims who wish to wear head scarfs in schools.

    You end up with a situation where the State has to either allow anyone to do anything or they have to assess the worth of each religions request if the request runs counter to the standard uniformed practice (for example the standard Garda uniform)

    And that runs contrary to the whole point of separation of Chruch and State, that being that the State doesn't favor (for what ever reason) one religious belief over another.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    If I was a betting man I would have placed a tenner on you replying with this exactpost, Wicknight :D
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is the "within reason" where you run into trouble.

    Indeed, 'within reason' is sufficiently ambiguous to cause problems. However, it was never my intention to make a prescriptive statement, simply an off the cuff remark. I believe that compromises can be achieved.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The religious person will always believe that their particular religious need is within reason. For example the Sikhs who wanted a separate Garda uniform for them. Muslims who wish to wear head scarfs in schools.

    So all 'religious people' - a term sufficiently ambiguous in itself to cause problems - will make demands and are incapable of reasoning beyond their own needs?

    As for problems with Sikhs wearing head scarf's, it would seem prudent to encourage minorities into such positions rather than place obstacles in their way.


  • Options
    #23
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Just wondering what you would feel about someone having a wooden cross by their bedside in hospital or a Bible. Is that acceptable?


    as pdn says if someone brought one in and put it on the bed table in a open ward that would be fine.

    If a public hospital had them up all over the place that would be a different question, but of course we can't deal with that until we deal with the issue of hospital in Ireland, which of our hospitals are public state hospitals? seeing most of them were founded via the church.
    I People should recognise that we are in a majority Christian state and with that it is going to influence other things (very slightly, but albeit it will affect it). If I was in Jordan or Syria for example (not quite aware of their systems but anyway) I wouldn't object to them having Islamic symbols of their institutions, such as hospitals, schools etc. I don't see why there is such a compulsion to change here.

    you said you wouldn't abject to secular state, if you don't, cross' and islamic symbols go. you still don't get the idea of secular. even if our population was 99% percent catholic a secular state would not have religious symbols all over its public hospitals. you have to recognise that.
    I don't think the Catholic church need any advertising given the growth figures between 2002 and 2006. However it is a common trend among Christian groups at the minute. Although Islam is rising rather rapidly it's due to it having a small base population, the Catholic Church has a rather large one.

    well your making a different point, im just sayng the people who benefit most from the advertising ban are the catholic church. it keeps their lot on message on keeps out the crazies and charismatic evangicals
    PDN wrote: »
    If an individual wants to bring in a cross, a Star of David, or a pentagram and display it by their bedside when in hospital then they should be free to do so. Individual freedom to express your faith.

    If a privately funded hospital wants to display statues of Mary all over their property then they are entitled to do so. "You pays your money and you takes your choice."

    If a publicly funded institution want to use my taxes to sponsor a display of religion then I want to protest. I don't care if it is another religion or if it is my own religion - it is wrong.

    take a look at our schools and hospitals, alot of them are funded and run both by state and nominally church, so it hard to know what they are, again this comes down to the gov abdicating its role on public services.

    its this thats important not minor symbols, your not taking the idea seriously jakkass,its these issues that are the compulsion to change, if you want its all about money and control not religion and most importantly for the Irish government responsibility.


  • Options
    #24
    ryoishin
    Registered Users Posts: 754 ✭✭✭ryoishin


    I think being a Catholic state was part of the Irish identity in responce to our independence. Does nt the constitution begin like ...... The Irish state with the powers invested in it by the most Holy Trinity......(something like that)?

    But I dont think thats where the Irish people are at. If the people want it changed then it should be.

    Also in city hall in Dublin there was statues of Roman Gods and they were taken away.


  • Options
    #25
    ztoical
    Registered Users Posts: 4,788 ✭✭✭ztoical


    ryoishin wrote: »
    I think being a Catholic state was part of the Irish identity in responce to our independence. Does nt the constitution begin like ...... The Irish state with the powers invested in it by the most Holy Trinity......(something like that)?

    But I dont think thats where the Irish people are at. If the people want it changed then it should be.

    Also in city hall in Dublin there was statues of Roman Gods and they were taken away.


    The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland removed from the constitution the reference to the "special position" of the Roman Catholic Church


  • Options
    #26
    LaVidaLoca
    Closed Accounts Posts: 277 ✭✭LaVidaLoca


    is gay marriage detrimental to a christian society pray tell?


  • Options
    #27
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Huh?


  • Options
    #28
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    If I was a betting man I would have placed a tenner on you replying with this exactpost, Wicknight :D
    Well I'm nothing if not consistent :)
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Indeed, 'within reason' is sufficiently ambiguous to cause problems. However, it was never my intention to make a prescriptive statement, simply an off the cuff remark. I believe that compromises can be achieved.
    Well there are plenty of people who agree with your position, and it is certainly a position that has arguments for it as much as against it.

    But it isn't separation of Church and State.

    So it would simpler if you didn't say you were for separation of Church and State.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    So all 'religious people' - a term sufficiently ambiguous in itself to cause problems - will make demands and are incapable of reasoning beyond their own needs?
    No, but then you don't need "all" religious people to make demands, you just need "some" or even "one" for there to be problems.

    Which is why if you notice I didn't say "religious people" I said "religious person", because I'm talking about the specific person making the complaint.

    By virtue of making the complaint in the first place this person obviously believes that their request or objection is reasonable. It then becomes a case where the State has to dictate to them that their request is or is not "reasonable", which is simply another way of saying that this persons religious belief that promoted the request is or is not reasonable.

    In a State with proper separation of Church and State the State should not decide what personal beliefs are reasonable or valid and which aren't based on the belief itself. It should be decided purely in a secular/general manner.

    You can't say that one religion's hat is fine, but another religion's hat is not allowed. You either allow hats or you don't allow hats.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    As for problems with Sikhs wearing head scarf's, it would seem prudent to encourage minorities into such positions rather than place obstacles in their way.

    Not if a person believes in separation of Church and State.

    If a person doesn't believe in separation of church and State then yes, it is prudent for the State to give concessions to certain minority religions to encourage their inclusion in institutions such as the Gardai, institutions that without these concessions the members of these religions would refuse to join.


Advertisement