The West Wing
I know that this is a TV show, and thus not 100% real life, but hear me out.
What I don't understand is this: if there is a constitutional separation of Church and State, why do politicians in the US spend so much of their time promoting/campaigning/lobbying from religious perspectives?
In all the crap leading up to the General Election in May, I don't remember any MP explicitly referencing their faith-based beliefs on political issues. In fact I don't remember anyone's religion being mentioned at all, except perhaps to criticise the Blair government for Blair being Christian (or perhaps to question the 'collective act of worship in schools' rule, though this might more be me projecting my own question). All of which is odd, when you consider that we have a national religion. We are in fact, in a way made impossible by the US Constitution, one nation under God, since we have a state faith and a head of state who is head of said faith.
Perhaps it goes back to Elizabeth I and her radical assertion that she 'did not wish windows into men's souls'. Perhaps even as far back as that, when CofE was a mere fledgling, we were moving towards an ambivalent attitude to religion in government, and perhaps the ease with which the church ceased to be biblically literal and accepting of the theory of evolution has developed into the take-it-or-leave-it approach taken by the electorate. Or perhaps, in having CofE we negate the need for a religious debate for just that reason: we are officially all members of said church, and thus we adopt a 'no windows' approach to the possibility that governing persons are not members: they must accept that parliament begins with prayer (though they are not obliged to attend) and remember the church's role but thereafter... I don't actually know the official rule for the Commons (though I would imagine there is no such legal discrimination by faith), but we shouldn't forget that 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords.
I think as I have been writing this, I have argued myself into my opinion on the UK, but I still remain bamboozled by the US. If church and state must be separate, then why do you swear on the bible? If church and state must be separate, why does the Pledge of Allegiance talk of 'one nation under god'? If church and state must be separate, why do politicians spend such a lot of their time campaigning or endorsing religious questions?
Anyway, I think that ramble was more to get my own thoughts straight that anything else. Not illuminated, but perhaps the shape of an opinion might be beginning to form.
What I don't understand is this: if there is a constitutional separation of Church and State, why do politicians in the US spend so much of their time promoting/campaigning/lobbying from religious perspectives?
In all the crap leading up to the General Election in May, I don't remember any MP explicitly referencing their faith-based beliefs on political issues. In fact I don't remember anyone's religion being mentioned at all, except perhaps to criticise the Blair government for Blair being Christian (or perhaps to question the 'collective act of worship in schools' rule, though this might more be me projecting my own question). All of which is odd, when you consider that we have a national religion. We are in fact, in a way made impossible by the US Constitution, one nation under God, since we have a state faith and a head of state who is head of said faith.
Perhaps it goes back to Elizabeth I and her radical assertion that she 'did not wish windows into men's souls'. Perhaps even as far back as that, when CofE was a mere fledgling, we were moving towards an ambivalent attitude to religion in government, and perhaps the ease with which the church ceased to be biblically literal and accepting of the theory of evolution has developed into the take-it-or-leave-it approach taken by the electorate. Or perhaps, in having CofE we negate the need for a religious debate for just that reason: we are officially all members of said church, and thus we adopt a 'no windows' approach to the possibility that governing persons are not members: they must accept that parliament begins with prayer (though they are not obliged to attend) and remember the church's role but thereafter... I don't actually know the official rule for the Commons (though I would imagine there is no such legal discrimination by faith), but we shouldn't forget that 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords.
I think as I have been writing this, I have argued myself into my opinion on the UK, but I still remain bamboozled by the US. If church and state must be separate, then why do you swear on the bible? If church and state must be separate, why does the Pledge of Allegiance talk of 'one nation under god'? If church and state must be separate, why do politicians spend such a lot of their time campaigning or endorsing religious questions?
Anyway, I think that ramble was more to get my own thoughts straight that anything else. Not illuminated, but perhaps the shape of an opinion might be beginning to form.