One of the big differences between Christianity and Judaism is in theology. While Christians have (what seems to me as) very complex beliefs about the nature of God, Jews believe simply that God is unknowable. On the other hand, Jews do believe they know what God wants us to do, i.e. what our values should be.
I have often contended (so far not on this blog) that every religion has its own definition of religion. But it seems to me that all religions extol a system of values – so this is perhaps our best definition of it. However, this does cause some problems for US law – all of which are solvable. As I have said before, it means that we cannot teach values without teaching religion, so the government monopoly on education is unconstitutional. It also means that the government should get out of the marriage business. In fact, the only values that the government should explicitly institutionalize are those that are specified in its constitution.
Okay, maybe I’m going too far. Murder and theft are not unconstitutional in the US; neither is driving through a red light. (Though the constitution does give the government the right to regulate commerce.) But I certainly do think that in cases where organized religions (or even unorganized religions – groups of people who have common values) have differing opinions on social institutions, the government should get out of the way.
Posted by David Boxenhorn at July 18, 2004 05:40 PM"Murder and theft are not unconstitutional in the US; neither is driving through a red light."
With all due respect, that's because you miss two of the most revolutionary concepts of the Constitution: enumerated powers and federalism. Sure, civics classes teach about the three branches of the FEDERAL government and the concept of the separation of powers. But what they neglect to teach you (this is the leftist bias of the government schools) is that the constituent states are (or really were) sovereign entities. Read the Treaty of Paris, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, and probably most importantly, the Anti-Federalist Papers. The 13 sovereign states delegated certain limited powers to a newly created federal government. The powers almost entirely concerned foreign relations, defense, and commerce. Common crimes like murder and theft were not considered the domain of the federal government. EVERY state has laws concerning various criminal matters. That they are different doesn't mean the feds should be involved.
Posted by: Scott at July 21, 2004 07:00 AM PermalinkScott,
I'm aware of federalism, you seem to be saying that while the US can't get involved in education and marriage, the individual states can do whatever they want, which is the case today. However, the non-establishment of religion clause applies to the states as well (or has been interpreted to mean such).
My point was that almost every law implies some sort of value, and every value implies some sort of religion – whether you call it such or not.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at July 21, 2004 08:28 AM PermalinkUnfortunately, the federal government is involved in education (have you checked the budget of the Dept. of Education recently? It's HUGE) and marriage (through onerous tax laws etc). And the states are not free to do whatever they want. The feds restrict them in all sorts of ways the Founders never intended.
The 9th and 10th ammendments (totally ignored by the courts today) do mean exactly that - the states can basically do whatever is permissible according to their own constitutions. Many states did have an established religion in early American history.
I agree with you about laws, values, and religion. But that doesn't mean the federal government should make laws in areas it was not intended to have jurisdiction.
Posted by: Scott at July 21, 2004 10:06 AM Permalink