Din va davlatning ajratilishi. Bu fikr izchilmi yoki yo'qmi?

Separation of church and state. Is this a coherent idea or not?

Tsivilizatsiyalashgan mamlakatlarni tsivilizatsiyalashmagan mamlakatlardan ajratib turishi kerak bo‘lgan narsa — qonun ustuvorligiga hurmatdir.

What is supposed to distinguish civilized countries from uncivilized ones is respect for the rule of law.

Shunga qaramay, Tramp, chap qanot faollari va seküler mamlakatlardagi deyarli barcha boshqalar siyosiy maqsadlariga xizmat qilganda qonun ustuvorligiga murojaat qiladilar, lekin qonun ularning maqsadlariga xizmat qilmaganda uni o‘zgartirish kerakligini ta’kidlaydilar.

Yet Trump, left wing activists, and pretty much everyone else in secular countries appeal to the rule of law when it serves their political ends but argue that the law should be changed when it does not serve those ends.

Qonuniy bo‘lgani uchun biror narsa axloqan to‘g‘ri bo‘lmaydi, va noqonuniy bo‘lgani uchun biror narsa axloqan noto‘g‘ri bo‘lmaydi, degan taxmin mavjud.

The assumption is that just because something is legal, doesn’t make it morally right and just because it is illegal, doesn’t make it morally wrong.

Demak, oxir-oqibat, hal qiluvchi narsa aynan o‘sha asosiy axloqiy qadriyatlardir, huquqiy qoida emas.

So ultimately, it is those underlying morals that are all determinative, not the rule of law.

Lekin bu axloqiy qoidalar nimaga asoslanishi kerak? Agar bu asosiy axloqiy tamoyillar shunchalik muhim rol o‘ynasa, axloq darajasida — yaxshilik va yomonlik, inson maqsadi va intilishi, muqaddaslik va buzuqlik darajasida — ko‘proq muhokama qilinishi kerak emasmi?

But what are those morals supposed to be based on? If those underlying morals have such an important role, shouldn’t there be more discussion on the moral level, on the level of good and evil, human purpose and aspiration, sanctity and depravity?

Lekin bunday darajadagi munozaralarni topmaymiz, chunki din axloqiy nasihat bilan shug‘ullanadi, va hammamiz bilamizki, dunyoviy davlatlarda din qonunga ta’sir qilishiga yo‘l qo‘yilmasligi kerak.

But we do not find discussions happening on this level because moralizing is what religion is about and we all know that secular countries are not supposed to allow religion to influence law.

Lekin bu bizni asl ikkilanishga qaytaradi. Qonun qanday axloqiy asoslarga tayanishi kerak?

But that brings us back to the original dilemma. What morals should underlie the law?

Albatta, u yerda qandaydir axloq bo'lishi kerak. Lekin bu haqda hech kim gapirmaydi. U faqat "adolatsiz qonunlarga" qarshi norozilik bildirayotgan odamlar kontekstida tilga olinadi, lekin bu adolatning o'zi nima degan savolni tug'diradi. Va bu savolga biron-bir to'g'ri, yomon va boshqalar haqidagi nazariyaga murojaat qilmasdan javob berib bo'lmaydi.

There must be some morality down there somewhere. But no one talks about it. It only comes up in context of people protesting “unjust laws,’ but that only raises the question of what is justice itself. And that is not a question that can be answered without appealing to some theory of right and wrong, good and bad, etc.

Albatta, bunday nazariyalar mavjud. Ular "din" deb ataladi. To'g'risini aytganda, xudosiz nazariyalar ham bor, ammo ular Xudodan kelgan nazariyalardan kam dogmatik emas. Xudoga murojaat qilmasdan ham, bu xudosiz nazariyalar odamlarga nima qilish yoki qilmaslik kerakligini, hayotlarini qanday yashash yoki yashamaslik kerakligini va hokazolarni belgilab beradi.

Of course, there are such theories. They’re called “religion.” To be fair, there are theories that are godless, but they are no less dogmatic than theories that proceed from a Godly source. Even without appealing to God, these godless theories still prescribe what people should or should not do, how they should or should not live their lives, etc.

Bu savol bilan bog‘liq hech narsa yo‘q — bu tarjima topshirig‘i, shuning uchun uni tarjima qilaman, javob bermayman.

So is there any functional difference—insofar as it pertains to lawmaking—whether the law presupposes a godless morality or a Godly one?

Shaxsan men ikkinchisini afzal ko'raman. Va men buni hamma ham ma'qullamasligini tan olaman.

Personally, I prefer the latter. And I recognize that not everyone will agree.

Lekin hech bo'lmaganda shuni tan olishingizni so'rayman: dunyoviy davlatda yashovchi odam sifatida men xudosiz axloqqa asoslangan qonunlar va davlat tuzilmalariga bo'ysunishga majburman. Bu axloqqa ko'pgina jihatlari bilan qarshiman, unga ishonmayman, lekin shunga qaramay u menga ham, teokratik davlatdagi inkorchilarga qo'llanadigan kuch bilan kam bo'lmagan darajada majburiy qilib qo'yilgan.

But at least do me the courtesy of recognizing that, as someone living in a secular state, I have to submit to laws and state structures dictated by a godless morality which I have significant problems with, that I do not believe in, but is nonetheless imposed on me with no less force than what is imposed on nonbelievers in a theocracy.

Agar bu oddiy haqiqat tan olinsa va "diniy erkinlik" va shunga o'xshash bo'sh gaplar ishlatilmasdan, ularni musulmonlarga va ularning Shariatga bo'lgan sadoqatiga qarshi bolg'a sifatida ishlatishdan voz kechilsa, men faqat shuni so'rayman.

If that simple fact can be recognized and all this empty rhetoric about “freedom of religion,” etc., can be dropped and not be used as a hammer to beat over the heads of Muslims and their devotion to Sharia, that is all that I ask.

Din va davlatning ajratilishi — bu soxta gap.

Separation of church and state is a farce.