Gay Marriage and the Separation of Church and State. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof 1st Amend U.S. Constitution How can a person freely exercise their Religion, refusing to participate in what the Bible calls sin (i.e Gay Marriage) When Hawaiis Gay Marriage law has no Religious Exemption for the individual. The individual will be required, and held in contempt for refusing, or subject to fines and civil forfeitures. The Cake Baker, the Photographer, the Limo driver, the Food Catering and the list goes on. Have no Religious Exemption! The exemption being reserved to that of the clergy only (and Material Church Facility). In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution not only prohibits the federal government, but under the 14th Amendment applies to the states too (Cantwell v. State of Connecticut). However, the freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act is not absolute The Court stated that to rule otherwise, would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Where then is the line drawn between Church and State, regarding the free exercise of acting upon ones religion? President Thomas Jefferson wrote; Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach ACTIONS only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his SOCIAL DUTIES. The Supreme Court (Reynolds v. U.S., 1878) ruled; it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach ACTIONS which were in violation of SOCIAL DUTIES or subversive of good order.” The question than becomes is it the Individuals social duty to not discriminate (by his actions or refusal to act) against the Gay citizen and Gay agenda for Equality in Marriage? If it is, then the state law is not over-reaching in its mandate requiring the religious person to act contrary to his belief. If the Constitution only recognizes (1st Amendment) freedom of Religion and thus implied creation of Religious Exemptions (which is not the same as Conscience Exemptions) and Hawaii Law seems to be Constitutional in its reach, without even giving any exemption to the individual (except clergy). Then how can relief be obtained? The Oxford Dictionary defines conscience as: a moral sense of right and wrong, especially as felt by a person and AFFECTING BEHAVIOR (my conscience wont allow me to do that). The church (Vatican II) has defined conscience; the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man Conscience and Religious Exercise or two different things. For example most people do not believe that they are required of conscience to attend the church Wednesday prayer meeting. A law then that prevented them from attending, would not violate their right of conscience, but would violate their religious liberty. However, in Hawaiis law, we grapple with the converse. Hawaiis Gay Marriage law may not violate, as we have seen, Constitutionally protected Religious Liberty, but it tramples private conscience! The problem is one of reconciling Individual Conscience with that of State Authority. I do not agree, that conscience being ordained of God, imputes to it a sovereignty above the state. Nor do I believe the inverse It is none the less of God. Therefore conscience is compulsory. A religious exercise might be optional, but conscience is different- it is in essence inalterable and compelling. Therefore conscience implies a need to recognize adherence to it. It is none the less of God. Therefore conscience is compulsory. A religious exercise might be optional, but conscience is different- it is in essence inalterable and compelling. Therefore conscience define principles and with the need to recognize adherence to them. Prevalence with which particular norms of society are held, does not indicate its degree of congruence with abstract moral truth. Such has only and always flowed from individual conscience alone. Historically, Individual conscience has often been the only contemporary voice against what we now universally agree to have been atrocities in human history! We as a society may find it inconvenient to recognize that the implication at times leads the individual to be above the law. Therefore, we must appeal, to the collective, not to trample the conscience in its supposed protection of others rights. We are selves must also be true to that principle, if we wish to retain any meaning to conscience. Therefore, I propose that the best way to approach the problem is through Civil Disobedience. The Church and especially its clergy MUST REFUSE to claim the clergy religious exemption to avoid fines jail and persecution. Instead the clergy must stand with the individual, with their church congregants, who have no such exemption offered. Until the church can un-incorporate and thereby remove itself from state jurisdiction. Its pastor must not utilize an exclusive right offered to him only, that is not also offered to the individual. To do so, betrays the conscience of the clergy.
Posted on: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 02:20:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015