Practically speaking, I think you’re correct in that the government cannot please every religion and every personal viewpoint. But I still believe the less interference between religion on governmental policy and the reverse, the better.
Key word (wrong word
) = “interference”
Meltzerboy, if committed black Baptists (+other Protestants), + Catholics
+ Jews, had not “interfered” with existing Southern culture back in the 1960’s, the Civil Rights movement as we know it would not have occurred. It was, in large respect,
a religiously driven movement, aided by (to Lisa’s point) moral atheists and agnositcs (to a much lesser extent).
A good Jew reconciles his moral conscience with his voting decisions, no? (In my experience, yes.) In fact, of all the people I know, including Catholics, Jews are much more likely to actually agonize over voting decisions than any other single group.
Again, tangentially to Lisa’s point, I see much of the late 20-th and early 21st-century Jewish activism in politics to be post-Shoah consciousness. It is very important to every practicing Jew I personally know (and I know a lot of them
) not to be silent on civic issues which have moral import. It doesn’t matter how much a minority Jews are in the population, it is Standing for something that is the issue. (Christians call it Witness.
)
I would not even want to recommend what another family should do in situations such as this or in those involving the mercy-killing of a loved one. It is none of my business and none of the government’s business.
You can look upon it as “recommending.” Or you can look upon it as saying, “Here is what I stand for, because this is how my faith informs my conscience on this issue.” You could not say just that, speaking to a Jewish family who seemed racked by indecision?
