Monday, July 18, 2005

"Faith of our Fathers"

An article in the Conservative Voice discussing the seperation of church and state mentioned Conservative Lieutenant Governor candidate Bill Bolling. Bill Bolling was quoted as saying, "Our country and Commonwealth were founded by people who held strong Judeo-Christian ethics. They believed, and I agree, that we would become strong and remain strong only as long as we remained committed to these important principles. For these reasons, I do believe that our laws should reflect those Judeo-Christian values." Delegate Chris Saxman, who endorsed Bolling's percieved liberal opponent Connaughton is also mentioned in the article as saying , "Should or does? The fact of the matter is that U.S and Virginia law do reflect Judeo-Christian values with respect to the manner in which rights exist. Our founding fathers and our founding documents establish that rights come from God and not man. As laws are written to protect those established rights, they naturally would be seen being in support of or against those rights.""

2 Comments:

At 7/18/2005 11:44:00 AM, Blogger Steven said...

There's two more columns in the religion and politics series...

Stay tuned.

~ the blue dog

 
At 7/18/2005 03:50:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I respect a few of those quoted in Mr. Sisson's article, all those words mean very little to me. Sounds like so much canned sound-bite stuff. It belabors the obvious to say that the legal structure of this country (or Virginia) reflects Judaeo-Christian values. Why wouldn't it? This would be the case even with the strictest segregation of secular and religious functions. so I don't see what's newsworthy about either the question or the answers.
The article is valuable, however, in reminding readers of Virginia's central role in the struggle for religious freedom. A serious issue of the time was the use of public funds to support the Church of England, an "established" church. This kind of church/state link was the immediate evil sought to be avoided by the Establishment Clause. Folks today have had no experience with that kind of church/state relationship, and thus have trouble understanding how offensive it was (particularly if you were not a member of the Anglican Church in the 1760s). I am spritiually well-tended for by the Anglican Communion today, but it would sure frost me bigtime, to pay taxes to the church (other than the tax I impose on myself - a tax that is higher than the marginal rate of my Virginia income tax).

 

Post a Comment

<< Home