President Trump’s recent nominations of Supreme Court Judge for potential Judge Anthony Kennedy replacements has caused heated debates for the three finalists: Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge. They all are excellent nominees who promote traditional values and are all excellent in their work.
With the school shooting tragedies frequently happening, more and more attention is direction to the moral/religion education and debates about what constitute a ethical behavior in topics such as birth control. One of the things people are hoping is potentially overthrown the court precedent in Roe v Wade ruling. On this subject, Buddhism culture is against abortion. Unless it is nature abortion or the fetus naturally die in the worn, all artificial abortion is regarded as killing athough the severity of the karma depends on the timing of artificial abortion during the conceptual process.
Buddhism regards the contraceptive prevention is the way to go. If a family feels they can’t take care of a child then it is acceptable to take family plan and use methods to prevent conception. Buddhists favor using condoms over birth control pills. The Plan B pill/Emergency Contraception pill taken after conception happens is equivalent to killing, in the eyes of Buddhists.
For these above reasons, I feel just making law to prohibit abortion is far from adequate and still too late in the process of prevention. We should have moral/religious/prevention education added to the current general youngster sex education to forewarn them the serious consequence of abortion/sex conducts. Further more, religious education should be integrated into public school education. To the least, general prayer should be allow in school. ( 1962, Engle v. Vitale).
Exactly 70 years ago, Supreme Court’s passed the land mark decision of disallow public resources usage for school religious education in McCollum v Board of Education. We are now suffering from that consequence. The phrase “wall of separation” used by Jefferson is most often used in reference to the First Amendment, but the complete text of the First Amendment simply reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The fact that the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in no founding document has not prevented many courts, including the Supreme Court, from invoking that phrase as the basis for many public policy decisions. So, exactly where did this phrase come from that has been used in recent years to attempt to remove all references to Jesus, God, Christianity, Buddhism, Karma, Confucianism, classical teaching, the Bible and Prayer from American government and public life?
American University Professor, Daniel L. Dreisbach, did some great work on Jasper Adams, a contemporary of Jefferson on the argument of the dangers of ‘Wall of Separation’. Adams insisted on disestablishment of religion and freedom of religion. Adams still believed that America needed a fund of common religious values, such as honesty, diligence, patriotism, etc. Jasper Adams viewed these traits as essential to the preservation of liberty, morality, and rule of law. Those arguments echo down the tunnel of time and we now have much solid evidences to testify.
Here is a another good article questions about the proper use of that citation from Federalist Blog. Maybe this is a good time to reconsider all the decisions based on that argument. After all, we have not been able to totally avoid passing law to prevent Travel Ban to the Muslim countries at this point. Here is another good article by a student questioning Should Politics and Religion be Kept Separate?
I also support the Change.org’s initiation to ask Congress to pass the first ever Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Right – to support the people who unfortunately have been raped. Because in our current broken criminal justice system, the rape kit often could be destroyed before it was even tested. And the rape survivors in some states have to pay for their own rape kits, or do not have access to counselors, or had to request every six months that their kits not be thrown away.
Having said all above, there is valid consideration to separate state from religion. So how can we reconcile the need for religion/moral education in our public life, make it feasible/workable and still try to avoid unnecessary complication of law procedures/process? That is the question.