May 28, 2005
Impose This
Eugene Volokh relates a short exchange with Geoff Stone of the University of Chicago Law School on faith-based lawmaking.
Stone:
George Bush appears to have no idea whatever of the difference between faith and morality. He acts arrogantly on the premise that cell-stem research, gay marriage and abortion are immoral, when in fact his views are based entirely on his own sectarian religious beliefs. His opposition to cell-stem research is no different, and no more legitimate, than a Muslim's opposition to Bush eating pork. Such a policy is merely faith masquerading as morality. As such, it is profoundly, blindly, and disturbingly incompatible with a basic premise of a well-functioning democratic society.Volokh:
What Bush fails to comprehend is the fundamental distinction between acting in accord with one's faith and imposing one's faith on others. Bush has a right not to marry a man, not to have an abortion, and not to do stem-cell research. But he has no legitimate authority to prevent others from acting differently if they do not share his religious convictions.
Your moral views may come from your understanding of human dignity; another's view may come from utilitarianism; another's may come from libertarianism; another's may come from fundamentalist Christianity. None of these bases are somehow provable; none is constitutionally superior to the others. (In fact, many of the arguments for religious freedom itself came from the "sectarian religious beliefs" of deeply religious people; I suspect that they supported religious freedom for religious reasons since religious reasons were the only moral reasons that counted to them.)I'll add that every law imposes the will of the majority on the will of the minority. A law prohibiting cock-fighting, for example, might be proposed, drafted, supported, and enacted by a legislative majority sympathetic to the arguments of animal rights activists, who think it's immoral (without reference to anything we'd consider religious) to use roosters in that fashion. And certainly, such a law would "impose" the morality of the animal rights activist legislators on those who want to hold cock fights. Volokh asks why such a result would be considered fine, but a law prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for research that will destroy human embryos isn't, and it's a great question because there isn't a good answer to it. The only answer that can be given is the one Volokh shows must be rejected -- that my morality (which is uninformed by religion) is valid, while your morality (which is informed by religion), is not.
Any other approach is itself deeply discriminatory -- it suggests that atheists, agnostics, utilitarians, and the like are entitled to enact their moral views into law (because they don't rest on religion) while devout Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and others are forbidden from enacting their moral views into law (because they do rest on religion). That's not mandated by the Constitution, it's not in my view compatible with our national traditions, and it's not right.
Hence my claim: It is certainly quite proper to ask whether a law is morally or constitutionally sound. A law banning the eating of pork may be quite unsound. Likewise, laws banning -- or allowing -- abortion, infanticide, the destruction of embryos or chimpanzees for medical purposes, or the killing of members of endangered species might be sound or unsound.
But it shouldn't matter whether someone supports them because of his belief that laws should turn on the greatest good for the greatest number, his belief that we are all sons and daughters of Gaea and must thus protect our environment, or his belief in the Bible. For most, quite possibly all, of us, our moral beliefs ultimately rest on unproven and unprovable moral axioms. The Constitution doesn't consign those whose moral beliefs rest on unproven and unprovable religious axioms to a lesser citizenship, under which they may not enact their views into law, while others with the same views that rest on unproven and unprovable secular axioms are free to do so.
This debate also highlights a problem the Democrats have with "faith based" policies of any stripe. Since the election last fall, there's been talk about how the Democrats have abandoned the field when it comes to the relevancy of religion to public policy, and that they need to rejoin that debate. After all, there's no shortage of liberal religious thought that can act as a counterbalance to the Religious Right -- in my lifetime, for example, Martin Luther King and the Berrigan brothers stand out as good examples. But I think the Democrat's problems here stem from the fact that the party's liberal base has pretty much rejected any argument made from a religious perspective. Certainly Dr. King's speeches ought to make them blush upon re-reading them today.
Would King be laughed out of the party today for trying to "impose" his brand of religion on all of us? Just asking.
Posted by Peter at May 28, 2005 07:49 AM
The problem is that the Democrats currently have no one like Martin Luther King in the party. A moral leader. And a charismatic leader. Currently, there are just a bunch of shrill voices. Constant opposition to the right is no substitute for ideas and an agenda and a leader to inspire people.
On the subject of morality and religion in governmental decision-making, I read some sage thoughts recently from a dean at one of the Catholic universities who has for a long time studied situations in various countries around the world. His conclusions are that in countries with a single state-sponsored religion, the people suffer terrible things, typically living under an oppressive regime. In nations where there are 2 prominent religions, civil war is a common occurrence. Witness the current mess in Iraq, which although there is a single dominant religion in Islam, the Sunnis and the Shiites seem to be at each others' throats. Then, there is the example of the good old US of A. Although we are still steeped in Judeo-Christian traditions, freedom of religion remains one of our guiding principles and we are open to every other religion in the world. We may never be perfect, or even close to it, but our system is still the best thing going and should be a guiding example for the rest of the world.
Interesting discussion.
I think Pete's points are well taken regarding Dr. King. And the differences between MLK and the Jerry Falwells, the James Dobsons, the Pat Robertsons are extremely evident.
I've been trying to delve into this one a bit, and came upon a website--(www.2020democrats.org/node/128) where the author is saying that the Democrats simply need to reach out more to "religious progressives" (people like Dr. King) more, because they have common goals-- mostly "to pursuade Americans of their moral objectives to their underrepresented and underpriviliged fellow citizens".
There seems to me to be a difference in types of religious people-- some are inclusive in nature and behavior and some are exclusive. That author says that the inclusive types have humility-- exclusives/fundamentalists can be lacking in this quality.
Here's a good example of the more exclusive type:
(www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm). This person suggests that Dr. King wasn't even a real Christian!
For me, I'm not real religious, but I see the inclusive religious as decent and often a force for good. I see the exclusive ones as dangerous. Those exclusive types are the reason we really need the separation of church and state.
Posted by: Glenn at May 29, 2005 10:34 PMYou are absolutely right to draw a distinction between practicing Christians who are exclusive and those who are inclusive. The exclusive ones don't seem to have learned any actual lessons from Jesus Christ. What's worse is that the inclusive Christians (i.e., the majority of practicing Protestants and Catholics) have too often let the exclusive, vocal minority define all of Christianity. The media, which relies on controversy for ratings and to sell papers, is always going to focus on the Falwells. The end result is that a lot of intelligent, well-meaning, moral people stay away from, and/or are distrustful of, the church. And the Democratic party for too long has ignored mainstream denominations.
Posted by: dan at May 30, 2005 09:01 PMGrax:
I know where you're going with the inclusive/exclusive distinction but I don't know that I think it's significant. All laws "impose" the will of the majority on the minority, and all laws include and exclude. I don't think it's a useful way to think about the problem.
I agree though, that some religious folks are much more dogmatic than others. I don't remember MLK saying we're all going to hell in a handbasket if blacks didn't get to vote, etc.. Jerry, Pat, and the rest of that crowd seem to remind us where they think we're going every chance they get.
But the thing I take away from this discussion is that attacking an argument simply because it is based in someone's religious beliefs is a) a generally ineffective way to argue back and b) a sure way for the Democrats to continue losing elections -- which I think is the point of the reference you made.
I agree that attacking an argument because it is based on someone's religious beliefs is a way to continue to lose elections. But how should the Democrats debate something like "intelligent design"? Suppose a religious right/GOP run school district decides that kids should not be taught evolution, but "intelligent design" instead. If you are a parent in that school district and you disagree (and further, see it as the school board's means of forcing religion into the schools), how do you debate with its proponents? You aren't allowed to criticize their religious beliefs, but they are fully allowed to criticize well supported evolutionary theory to the point of removing it from the curriculum. What would be your approach?
Posted by: Glenn at May 31, 2005 07:04 PMNot only religions ... but what about the politicos? The Department of Ed has decided to impose "Constitution Day" on every educational institution- and threatens to withold federal dollars from those schools (preK through doctoral) that do not "teach the consitution" on September 16 (or 17th ... whatever). And that includes financial aid and TRIO and UPWARD BOUND and Talent Search and subsidized school lunches. What's next> Thank you, Senator Byrd.
Posted by: Judy at June 3, 2005 04:27 PM