Do we really want a permanent separation of reason and faith as different means of knowing truth? Is it not more in line with notions of progress to see the separation as a necessary step in which reason had the opportunity to catch with the wisdom of our religions and reason? And do religions not require a rational accounting for the violent acts they inspire?
What if it is possible to find a permanent way to address the conflicts between believers of different faiths or between believers and rationalists? Should we not intellectually pursue that possibility given the obvious stress the current model is causing?
As only Jack Nicholson can deliver with just the right combination of contempt and disappointment– Is this as good as it gets? The biggest problem with the concept of separating church and state is that we have assumed that there is no way to bridge the two worlds and it is time to discuss this assumption. We need to consider what we gain and what we lose by adhering to this constitutional ideal outside of any contentious issue.
Posts
Test Article
2 years ago
As we struggle to make sense of our lives, filtering this faith, that dogma, these needs, and those causes, "Is this as good as it gets?", verbalizes an internal wake-up call. When government, churches and society at large, no longer reflect your hopes and dreams in a spirit of positive unification, where do you turn?
ReplyDeleteYour dialogue searches for the common ground that many current "statesmen, and women" find impossible to locate.
Thank You Can't wait for the book. Congratulations.