Written in response to a comment on another of my posts…

Personally, I think the subject of separation of Church and State is MUCH simpler than many make it. In fact, I can sum it up in a single sentence. “You cannot have freedom of religion without first having freedom FROM religion!” Government by, of, and for the people means that society as a whole is represented by their government. That means that subjective things like morals, right and wrong, and limitations on behavior are legislated by government ONLY to the extent that is necessary to ensure that the freedom, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and well being of the people (individually and as a whole) are not infringed.

Religion is belief, belief is subjective, and government is supposed to be objective. The framework that was given to us by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution and other documents reflects basic values and philosophies (about nations, people, and governments) that are the basis for our government and country. When published, the Declaration of Independence contained ideas that were new and shocking to the rest of the world. In my opinion, a basic concept that underlies everything the Founding Fathers did was the idea that the subjective beliefs, religions, and morals of any individual or group should NOT be forced upon any other individual or group by government, EXCEPT to the extent that limiting the behavior of individuals or groups is necessary to prevent that behavior from forcing subjective beliefs upon others.

Sounds like a vicious circle of logic? Well, it is a complex subject, and I tend to pontificate in the realm of clean and straight-forward logic and analysis, while the world operates quite differently. Yes, attempting to provide as much freedom of behavior as possible to a nation of more than 200 million people is an impossible balancing act. If the human race consisted of only a single individual, that person’s behavior would only be limited by the laws of physics and nature. Add one additional human being to the mix, and behavior will have to have some additional “social” limitations, or soon there would only be one left. The more people and the closer the proximity, the more limitations to behavior will be needed, at least in a country where we believe that everyone has the same “inalienable” rights.

So, my philosophy is that people should be able to anything they want, as long as their behavior does no harm to others. The measurement of “harm” is where the balancing act comes in. It is easy to identify harm when it is bodily harm from violent behavior, or destruction or theft of personal property (including money), but things like libel, slander, emotional distress, can be more subjective.