Професійна діяльність дізнавача характеризується такими аспектами.

Дата добавления: 2015-09-15; просмотров: 708

Since Madison and Jefferson, arguments about religion in America have ebbed and flowed. This year they are ebbing. This is a pity for America would have much to gain from conducting a searching discussion of the boundaries between the secular and the religious.

There are politicians whose faith actually seemed to influence the way they thought about public decisions, and they were celebrated for it by people of every religion in the country.

Before long, however, the American Defamation League (a Jewish organization set up to attack anti-Semitism) started complaining that “appealing to citizens along religious lines … is contrary to the American ideal.” And when they suggested that public morality went hand in hand with a belief in God, various civil-rights groups claimed this was threatening freedom of unbelief.

From the viewpoint of the presidential election, that was predictable. Although most Americans want their president to hold strong religious beliefs, hardly anyone thinks that the issue of church and state is important in the election and, indeed, people are divided about whether they want politicians to discuss religion: half say yes, 45% say no.

But looked at from the longer perspective of debate over the “wall of separation”, the lull in the debate is a loss. The wall is an idea that commands enormous respect in America. The phrase itself is Jefferson’s (it occurs in a letter he wrote to some Connecticut Baptists) and has been elevated by no less a body than the Supreme Court into the guiding principle for understanding the (otherwise incomprehensible) first amendment to the constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Yet, the notion that there really is a wall between church and state is misleading, and the court’s own decisions, erected on its supposedly solid foundation, show this to be so. In its wisdom the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may have its own chaplain. But a student may not lead a prayer at a school football match. Public money may not go to private religious schools. Except that it can if the money goes to the student first, not the school. And so on.

The lesson is not that the Supreme Court is incompetent (well, not necessarily, anyway). It is that its decisions cannot be consistent because there is no “wall of separation” to guide it – that is, no big barrier clear for us to see. Rather, church and state in America are separated by the finest of lines, which twists and turns, is hard to discern, and which changes over time.

In a recent book “What’s God to do with American Experiment?”, E.J.Dionne argues that America is now embarking on the third stage of its endless national debate about where this line should be. In the first phase, which lasted until the 1950s, the arguments were largely driven by the public concerns of white Protestant churches.

The second phase saw the country grappling with the implications of the civil-rights era by embracing the concerns of black churches, of mosques, of Catholics and Jews. What that meant in practice was that, to avoid giving offence to religious minorities, the government carefully shied away from expressing any sort of official world view that might ever be seen as religious.

That in turn laid the foundation for the third, and current stage: the reaction. Many religious leaders, and not only Christian ones, now argue that the separation of church and state, instead of just guaranteeing freedom of religion, has ended up promoting secularism. In its attempt to be indifferent between various religions, the state became indifferent to religion itself – and even hostile to it.

Simultaneously, a considerable amount of recent evidence has shown that some of America’s most effective programmes against poverty, crime and addiction are being run by religious organizations – and that the country would be better off if more public money went to them. The upshot is that this third round of debate is about trying to draw a line that accommodates “faith-based” social work and makes the public arena less hostile to religion.

It is far from clear where this line should go, or even whether it can be drawn successfully. But in general the country surely needs to hear more about it, not less. Only by arguing about it in every generation has America managed to keep its democratic state without compromising its religious freedom.

(From ‘The Economist’, abridged)

Find the following quotations in the text and comment on them.

1. “… the Anti-Defamation League … started complaining that ‘appealing to citizens along religious lines … is contrary to American ideal.’ And when they suggested that public morality went hand in hand with a belief in God, various civil-rights groups claimed this was threatening freedom of unbelief.”

2. “… the notion that there really is a wall between church and state is misleading …”

3. “The lesson is not that the Supreme Court is incompetent … .It is that its decisions cannot be consistent because there is no “wall of separation” to guide it …”

4. “Many religious leaders, and not only Christian ones, now argue that the separation of church and state, instead of just guaranteeing freedom of religion, has ended up promoting secularism.”

5. “It is far from clear where this line should go, or even whether it can be drawn successfully … . Only by arguing about it in every generation has America managed to keep its democratic status without compromising its religious freedom.”

Analyze the statements given in the article very carefully and prepare a short speech as if you were taking part in a debate on the problem of whether church should be completely separated from state.

(First act as if you were in favour of this separation and then against it. You must be prepared to support both points of view. While preparing the speech follow the procedure suggested in the similar task of Unit 7.)

Vocabulary 2