There has been a lot of discourse regarding the separation of “church and state” lately. It is a “hot-button” issue, which has many people on both sides of the argument, angry. There are two recent examples of the polarization of the argument. In Montgomery, Alabama, Chief Justice Roy Moore refused to remove the Ten Commandments that had been inscribed on a large tablet in the State Judicial Building. Many people, including the Alabama Supreme Court, demanded its removal.
In another case, the Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, authorized the city to offer marriage licenses to same-sex partners. Many people, on both sides, argued their positions.
In both the case of Judge Moore and Mayor Newsom, the courts are deciding on the constitutionality of the subject, which is the right thing to do. Neither of these cases are trivial. They both have merit and are at the heart of the “church and state” issue, and must be carefully reviewed and decided. However, there is another, underlying problem here
In these two examples, neither the Judge nor the Mayor is innocent. Although they are doing something that they strongly believe in, they are doing something wrong. Judge Moore had erected this monument as a testament to the Judeo-Christian faith. However, in a society that celebrates freedom of religion and freedom from religion, these tablets can be taken as an affront to those who are not Jewish or Christian. The Alabama Supreme Court did not rule against G-d. They ruled against placing one religion above any other. Judge Moore, as an elected leader of State of Alabama, must obey the laws of the state and the country.
Mayor Newsom is just as guilty. The State of California does not recognize gay marriage. That’s it. End of story. The fact is, in March of 2000, voters in California overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, which called for a ban on same-sex marriages, by a 61-39% vote.
Therefore, Mayor Newsom is violating the law, that he was elected to uphold, as well.
Of course, Mayor Newsom and Judge Moore are not the only ones, only the most celebrated. The question of church and state has been around for a long time. It only seems more so now because of the deep polarization of the country. However, it has some very deep repercussions at lower levels.
According to a story in the Chicago Tribune, a former ambulance driver is suing her company, Superior Ambulance Services, for wrongful termination and religious discrimination. Apparently, Stephanie Adamson decided against transporting a woman who had called the ambulance because she was suffering from abdominal pain. The woman, who had recently become pregnant, wanted to be taken to a nearby abortion clinic. Because it was considered a “non-emergency” call, the woman had the right to choose which medical facility she wished to go, as long as it was not further that the nearest hospital. The tribune reported that she called Superior and told the dispatcher that she couldn't do the job because of her religious beliefs. "I just felt really strongly it was something that I couldn't do," said Adamson, a devout Christian who is adamantly anti-abortion. "It would be against everything that I believe in and everything that I support." (read story – HERE)
Now I’m not saying she doesn’t have a right to be anti-abortion. Of course she does. However, by refusing to do the job she was required to do, as long as it not illegal, the ambulance company has every right to terminate her. She was hired to do a job and then refused to do it. What if the patient’s stomach distress were caused by eating undercooked meat? Could Ms. Adamson then refuse to treat the victim on the basis that she (Adamson) was a Vegan?
I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state. However, I am a devoutly religious person. As a Jew, I believe that there is a higher authority. As an American, I believe that that is my decision and while others may not like it, they must respect it. As long as the law states abortion is legal and gay marriage isn’t or erecting a symbol of G-d’s authority is not as well, we must obey those laws. If we wish to change them, we must do so in a legal was, through voting.
This especially true of those who were elected and should know better.
No comments:
Post a Comment