No Intrusion
In an article on charitable choice (January/February, 2001) you state, and I quote:
“In the larger scheme of things, charitable choice is just another skirmish in the longstanding battle over the proper relationship between church and state. The best outcome of this skirmish would be a stern reminder of the continuing importance of the separation of church and state.
“In the social services area, as in other areas, church/state disputes arise, the separation of church and state continues to serve three functions essential to the preservation of religious liberty: it ensures that the government will not be controlled by religious groups; it ensures that churches will not be controlled by the government; and it ensures that individuals will remain free to decide for themselves the direction of their spiritual quests.”
I could not disagree with you more strongly. The constitutional provision for separation of church and state was to keep the church out of the administration of the state, not the other way around, as you are trying to propose. History is replete with the excess of the church when it comes to ruling as if it were the state. I am against all intrusion of the state into any religion, and more important, I am diametrically opposed to any—I repeat, any—intrusion by any religion into the government.
ROBERT F. HANNA, e-mail
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend