That’s all well and good, Grant, but the fact of the matter is that we live in a very pluralistic society. The idea of international law came about because we couldn’t get everybody in the world to sign on to the same ‘moral reasons’ that we do. Therefore, we try for a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach, which is international law. This is necessary, in my opinion, to prevent international relationships from devolving into a battle of competing moral laws and moral and religious legal codes. That’s true on a global level and, to a slighly lesser extent, on a national and local level as well. Which is why I’m a pretty firm believer in separation of church and state, both domestically and internationally.
That isn’t to say that your religion can’t shape your policy, but I think it has a tendency to be dangerous when a particular religion becomes the basis of official public policy. Not only do people of other religions become essentially excluded from public debate and policy decisions, but the principles of that religion will inevitably be co-opted for political power. I don’t think it’s much different than state churches in Europe pre-enlightenment or islamist governments of today. When something becomes institutionalized to that degree, it’s bound to stray from its core principles. Then it can become really dangerous, both to people that don’t agree with that religion, and to the religion itself.
jonner
Jul 01 2003
07:28 am
That’s all well and good, Grant, but the fact of the matter is that we live in a very pluralistic society. The idea of international law came about because we couldn’t get everybody in the world to sign on to the same ‘moral reasons’ that we do. Therefore, we try for a ‘lowest common denominator’ approach, which is international law. This is necessary, in my opinion, to prevent international relationships from devolving into a battle of competing moral laws and moral and religious legal codes. That’s true on a global level and, to a slighly lesser extent, on a national and local level as well. Which is why I’m a pretty firm believer in separation of church and state, both domestically and internationally.
That isn’t to say that your religion can’t shape your policy, but I think it has a tendency to be dangerous when a particular religion becomes the basis of official public policy. Not only do people of other religions become essentially excluded from public debate and policy decisions, but the principles of that religion will inevitably be co-opted for political power. I don’t think it’s much different than state churches in Europe pre-enlightenment or islamist governments of today. When something becomes institutionalized to that degree, it’s bound to stray from its core principles. Then it can become really dangerous, both to people that don’t agree with that religion, and to the religion itself.