Separation of church and state must be upheld
Commentary
Christina Morris
Issue date: 2/20/04 Section: Ed-Op
- Page 1 of 1
When the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, they included provisions to maintain the separation of church and state. They wanted to prevent the nomination or favoring of any one religion over any other by the government and also to protect the rights of those who chose not to have any religion at all.
The actual line referring to the separation of church and state is in the First Amendment. In part, it reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." People have taken this law to mean that many references to God should be removed from public areas or areas associated with the government, such as the recent case of the Ten Commandments being on a monument in an Alabama Court house or that of the forbidding of prayer in public schools. This is only one side of the issue, however, and I think, the smaller one.
We cannot ignore the greater issues. Coming before courts at this moment is the interpretation of the rights of same sex couples. I agree that the U.S. government cannot legalize religious marriages for these people; however, by trying to prevent the legalization of civil unions for same sex couples, the government would be trying to establish the beliefs of one religion's, namely Christianity's, belief that same sex couples are living in sin, as law. If passed, this would certainly prohibit the free exercise of the rights of those who believe that this lifestyle is not a sin.
Therefore, in order to uphold the Constitution, it is necessary that a federal law be passed upholding the rights of same sex couples for civil unions. The key phrase here is "civil unions." They would not have to be recognized by any religious organization but would be entitled to rights as people who have chosen to live their lives together, such as the ability to visit each other should one or the other become hospitalized, the ability to inherit a loved one's things and simple privileges like jointly filing taxes. I am writing this, in large part, in response to the inflammatory commentary written by Sean Crouse ("Christian morals should become gov't policy," The Triangle, Feb. 13, p. 14).
I am a Roman Catholic, and I am greatly angered by Crouse's unfounded claim that my religion is not Christian. If he were to look at any history book, he would see that all Christian religions are actually derivations of Catholicism. So, while I am Christian, I am also minoring in political science and know what is legal in this country and what is not. His opinion is his opinion; however, he has no right to force these opinions on other people. Also, before he presumes to call me "blasphemous" because I have an open mind, he ought to remember that Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Christina Morris is a pre-junior majoring in computer science.
The actual line referring to the separation of church and state is in the First Amendment. In part, it reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." People have taken this law to mean that many references to God should be removed from public areas or areas associated with the government, such as the recent case of the Ten Commandments being on a monument in an Alabama Court house or that of the forbidding of prayer in public schools. This is only one side of the issue, however, and I think, the smaller one.
We cannot ignore the greater issues. Coming before courts at this moment is the interpretation of the rights of same sex couples. I agree that the U.S. government cannot legalize religious marriages for these people; however, by trying to prevent the legalization of civil unions for same sex couples, the government would be trying to establish the beliefs of one religion's, namely Christianity's, belief that same sex couples are living in sin, as law. If passed, this would certainly prohibit the free exercise of the rights of those who believe that this lifestyle is not a sin.
Therefore, in order to uphold the Constitution, it is necessary that a federal law be passed upholding the rights of same sex couples for civil unions. The key phrase here is "civil unions." They would not have to be recognized by any religious organization but would be entitled to rights as people who have chosen to live their lives together, such as the ability to visit each other should one or the other become hospitalized, the ability to inherit a loved one's things and simple privileges like jointly filing taxes. I am writing this, in large part, in response to the inflammatory commentary written by Sean Crouse ("Christian morals should become gov't policy," The Triangle, Feb. 13, p. 14).
I am a Roman Catholic, and I am greatly angered by Crouse's unfounded claim that my religion is not Christian. If he were to look at any history book, he would see that all Christian religions are actually derivations of Catholicism. So, while I am Christian, I am also minoring in political science and know what is legal in this country and what is not. His opinion is his opinion; however, he has no right to force these opinions on other people. Also, before he presumes to call me "blasphemous" because I have an open mind, he ought to remember that Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Christina Morris is a pre-junior majoring in computer science.
