One main focus is on the founders of the document. A major point made is that even though most of the founders were Christian and lived by Christian principles, the envision was of a godless government. Their reasoning behind this idea was not of irreverence but confidence in religion too serve civil morality without intruding into politics. They believe in letting humans exercise their free will to believe in a God or to reject the idea without their decision affecting their role in government. They refer to the one time God is mentioned in the constitution, Article 6.
John Rawls’s political ideology further illuminates the significance of interpreting the First Amendment’s relationship with tolerance. In his book, Political Liberalism, he offers commentary on modern religious quarrels. Rawls suggests followers of many Christian based faiths in the U.S today insist their Christian ideals must be used to establish laws. Nonetheless, Rawls reminds his readers no all-inclusive doctrine compels the loyalty of all people and pluralism is an enduring feature in life. Rather, he encourages an intersecting consensus must occur so citizens can agree on constitutional and political issues in society.
What is crucial to note, however, is that Walzer comes to the realization that secularism is not necessarily the separation between religion and politics, but rather, religion separated from state power and politics separated from state power. The primary difference between the two writers is that Wæver focuses on peace and security, while Walzer’s aim is tolerance and personal freedom. Overall, secularism has everyone’s best interest in mind; however, this separation is an open-ended conflict between people of different faiths who realize that they have to coexist. Works Cited Walzer, Michael. "Drawing the Line: Religion and Politics."
According to Mill, liberty should not be enforced by law as any imposing would lead to breach of individual liberty. On the contrary, Devlin claimed that if society has the right to make judgments it can also use the law to enforce it. He said that society does have a right to use the law to preserve morality in order to safeguarding social morals. Further Devlin said that the law is not looking for true belief but what is commonly believed by individuals in a civil society as a whole. He said that the judgment of the “right minded person” will prevail and immorality would be something which the those people will consider immoral.
Morality do not have standard of right and wrong, it is based on personal conscience. The law can clearly specify whether a person is wrong and punished. The law must be based on morality and only the moral law will make it acceptable to the people. Law can also be used to maintain order and peace in the country. Some ethically unmanageable behaviours must be controlled by law.
This primarily means the Bible for some, although as Catholics we accept as equally true the teachings of the Apostles handed down through the bishops and known as Tradition. For both the Bible and Tradition, we believe we must obey because the teachings come from God, not because they are wise, will ensure a long life or prosperity. Christian ethics may be contrasted with Utilitarianism, whose adherents simply "do what works." Utilitarian ethics allowed the Holocaust, slavery, and totalitarian Communism. Because Christians do not believe humans made themselves or occurred "naturally," we do not believe we are free to do whatever su... ... middle of paper ... ...?
Both sets of beliefs look for the achievement of morality but they are based on two different sets. Secular ethics cannot achieve morality because its foundation is not based on truth. However, the foundation of Christian ethics is truth because God is truth. In a sense, Christians can fail and imply our own ethical standard by conducting sin. If we listen and act accordingly to our flesh and not toward the will of God, are we not conducting secular ethics?
But the certainty at fundamentalism’s core is unwarranted, leading them to wrongfully ignore their oppositions’ own valid opinions and the potential gains that come with them. In the eyes of Christian fundamentalists, their actions are protecting God’s will; they are upholding the laws of the Supreme Being, thus keeping society on the right path. Fundamentalists’ core beliefs “[are] encapsulated under the rubric of ‘the inerrancy of Scripture,” the idea that the Bible is God’s perfect word, the clearest expression of God’s plan for humanity (Marsden). With this comes the concept of Biblical literalism, that “the historical events recorded in the Bible…are accurate,” not parables or allegories—they believe God spoke plainly and clearly, not in confusing metaphors (Creationism Has). By corollary, if the Bible is the literal and inerrant record of God’s plan for humanity, and if God is humanity’s ultimate authority, then humans ought to obey the laws of the Bible.
He argues that the moral law applies to us because of the very nature of our finite rational will. If this is true, then we must view ourselves as the authors of the moral law, and consequently reject any maxims inconsistent with the autonomous moral law. In nearly every other, non-moral system of laws governing humanity, the laws and their authority come from an external source. The only reason we obey such external authorities is some other interest, not any inherent value. For example, the state in which we live creates laws that are binding on us.
Freedom according to Kant is will independent from foreign will and therefore reason should guide to individual principles independent of outside influences. Still everything relates back to an attempt to achieve a high morality, however for Luther this idea goes completely against spiritual righteousness, for him we are seemingly free through our spiritual righteousness and moral acts which are determined by God and he alone.