Church and State

One of the problems of illiberalism is that illiberals don't seem to understand what religion is. There is a large vein of agnostics that seem to think that all religions are the same. As G. K. Chesterton points out in "Orthodoxy", most of humanity is the same in that we all recognize that there is something wrong with the world, and most of us believe that there is a way out of this "fallen" world. The fallen nature of the world is the problem, religion is the solution. To suggest that all religions are the same because they all tend to agree on what is virtue and what is vice and they all agree that the world has both is like saying that all solutions are the same because they answer the same problem.

Many illiberals claim that the evangelical religious right is tearing down the walls of church and state by stopping embryonic stem cell research. I intentionally misworded the argument to make the point that President Bush did not outlaw stem cell research, he simply stopped government funding. Embryonic stem cell research will proceed as far as the private sector desires it to. Regarding the primary claim that this is some kind of breach of church and sate: nonsense. This is a ploy to undermine the efforts of a certain group of citizens. Again, Christianity is not built on its system of ethics, it is built on the redemption of Christ. Christianity's values are common to most of humanity's. The preservation of human life is not unique to Christianity, and neither is applying life to the human embryo. Even a ban against embryonic stem cell research would not breach the divide between church and state because, among other reasons, a rational argument can be made for such a law from virtually any ethical system. A secular humanist could argue that life is valuable and not to be taken for another's benefit, and this same secular humanist could argue that based on physical evidence, embryos are both human and alive; therefore, embryonic stem cell research is unethical. It is relatively easy to make a sound argument without bringing up God, the Bible, or Jesus Christ. If Christians are not allowed to take their ethics into the public square, who is? One man's ethics are allowed because he doesn't believe in God, but this man's ethics are not okay because he does believe in God. This system of ethics is okay because it's founder was a Greek, but this system is not okay because it's founder was a Jew. The argument is non-sensical. By that token one could argue that prohibitions against murder or theft are breaches of church and state.

So how do we sort out right from wrong? How do we, as a society, pick which values we will uphold and which we will reject? If we decide that modesty is a value we will uphold, how do we determine the degree: from bikinis that cover the essentials, to burkas that cover everything but the eyes. That, my friends, is what democracy is for. Make your argument! Prove to us all that bikinis are indecent. Prove to me that burkas are oppressive. Enter your system of ethics into the battle of the public square. Hone your arguments. Gather your evidence. But spare me your attempts to disenfranchise someone because their personal values also include devotion to God.