28/08: Religion and Public Policy
Category: Religion & Public Policy
Posted by: an okie gardener
Should U.S. public policy reflect viewpoints arrived at because of religious beliefs? In a previous post I argued that from an engagement with Scripture, Christians should reject same-sex practice, while welcoming into our congregations those who struggled with same-sex desires. Here. A Waco Farmer then commented "On the other hand, and although I don't think this is your point in this particular post--but it is relevant to past discussions, this excellent essay in no way changes my view that our scripturally based morality in re same-sex relationships should not dictate public policy. For example: of the Ten Commandments, only three are regularly codified as public policy. Same goes for the instructions of Christ: the word of God doesn't always translate into human law. I maintain, and I think you agree, questions of public policy require an almost completely different set of assumptions and perspectives." His comment brought a response from Tocqueville. (see post below)
I now begin an answer to Farmer; since the issue is so large and complex I will give a short answer, then over the course of several posts with give-and-take, give my longer answer. Short answer: sort of. (cont. below)
I want to approach the issue from several angles: today from the historical.
The Constitution of 1787 has been called the most secular document produced until then. There is no mention of God. ( An omission which some 19th-century evangelicals tried and failed to correct through Constitutional amendment.) And the few mentions of religion are negative (no religious tests for public office, etc.) Furthermore, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, or from interfering with the free exercise of religion. As is well known, we have been debating since then exactly what the role of religion, and its relationship to government, should be regarding public policy. Avoiding the lengthy and messy details of this history, I wish to make a few points.
First, neither the Declaration of Independence, nor The Articles of Confederation, nor the actions of the Continental Congress, nor the Constitution of 1787, nor the actions of Congress in the opening decades of our nationhood, can be understood to be a deliberate rejection of religion. This assertion can be sustained by comparing our Revolution and its aftermath to the French Revolution. Even our most Enlightenment influenced founders such as Jefferson and Franklin were products of the English-speaking Enlightenment, not the French-speaking. They rejected traditional Christianity, but did not reject the idea of God and an orderly universe governed by laws established by the divine Law Giver. Jefferson and Adams did not hope that all religion would die away; they hoped that a sort of Rational Christianity would replace traditional sects. My point: the founders did not envision a secular society as we understand one, therefore the context in which to understand our Constitution, and by extension our present government including public debate, is not that of a thoroughly secular world-view.
Second, in prohibiting the Federal government from establishing a religion (First Amendment), the founders were paying homage to two realities: states with their own laws, including established churches in some of them (Massachusetts was the last to disestablish in 1833); and the Christian diversity of the American population in which no single church had the alliegance of an overwhelming majority of citizens. Another reality that may have influenced the decision, a significant number of Americans belonged to no church. (Though very few of these were secular men and women in the modern sense of the term; their worldview tended to be a kind of generic Protestantism.) My point: the no establishment clause cannot be understodd as a mandate for removing religion from the public square.
Third, the history of political discourse, and public policy, in the United States is filled with religious motivation and rhetoric. Slavery, Women's Rights, Consumption of Alcohol, the place of Farmers and Workers in the Industrial Economy, Race Relations, and more, all have been argued in Christian language and reasoning. Point: historical precedent allows the use of religious reasoning in public discourse, and by extension, in public policy.
On the other hand:
Fourth, the history of the United States is one of increasing religious diversification. In the early decades of the U.S., most Americans thought of our nation as somehow Protestant. However, from the Irish immigrations of the 1830s on through other waves of immigration Roman Catholicism has become an increasingly large body. The late 19th/early 20th century saw large numbers of Jews added through immigration to the small number already in place; also this period witnessed sizable immigration of Orthodox. With changes in immigration policy in the 1960s we have seen significant numbers of Asian religions such as Buddhism, and others such as Islam, become part of the American electorate. Point: in a republic/democracy such as ours, basing public policy on the beliefs of only one religion is becoming increasingly problematic.
Fifth, in spite of the validity of points one and two above, the founders did not seem to envision a nation whose laws were based solely on the dicta of one particular form of Christianity.
Conclusion: I confess I still am sorting this issue out in my mind. However, I hold the following: religious motivation and rhetoric and reasoning are proper in the public square, however, one particular sect or denomination cannot expect others to bow before it; public policy in a political system such as ours cannot be based solely on faith claims.
Next, I will try to come at the question from a philosophical angle.
I now begin an answer to Farmer; since the issue is so large and complex I will give a short answer, then over the course of several posts with give-and-take, give my longer answer. Short answer: sort of. (cont. below)
I want to approach the issue from several angles: today from the historical.
The Constitution of 1787 has been called the most secular document produced until then. There is no mention of God. ( An omission which some 19th-century evangelicals tried and failed to correct through Constitutional amendment.) And the few mentions of religion are negative (no religious tests for public office, etc.) Furthermore, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, or from interfering with the free exercise of religion. As is well known, we have been debating since then exactly what the role of religion, and its relationship to government, should be regarding public policy. Avoiding the lengthy and messy details of this history, I wish to make a few points.
First, neither the Declaration of Independence, nor The Articles of Confederation, nor the actions of the Continental Congress, nor the Constitution of 1787, nor the actions of Congress in the opening decades of our nationhood, can be understood to be a deliberate rejection of religion. This assertion can be sustained by comparing our Revolution and its aftermath to the French Revolution. Even our most Enlightenment influenced founders such as Jefferson and Franklin were products of the English-speaking Enlightenment, not the French-speaking. They rejected traditional Christianity, but did not reject the idea of God and an orderly universe governed by laws established by the divine Law Giver. Jefferson and Adams did not hope that all religion would die away; they hoped that a sort of Rational Christianity would replace traditional sects. My point: the founders did not envision a secular society as we understand one, therefore the context in which to understand our Constitution, and by extension our present government including public debate, is not that of a thoroughly secular world-view.
Second, in prohibiting the Federal government from establishing a religion (First Amendment), the founders were paying homage to two realities: states with their own laws, including established churches in some of them (Massachusetts was the last to disestablish in 1833); and the Christian diversity of the American population in which no single church had the alliegance of an overwhelming majority of citizens. Another reality that may have influenced the decision, a significant number of Americans belonged to no church. (Though very few of these were secular men and women in the modern sense of the term; their worldview tended to be a kind of generic Protestantism.) My point: the no establishment clause cannot be understodd as a mandate for removing religion from the public square.
Third, the history of political discourse, and public policy, in the United States is filled with religious motivation and rhetoric. Slavery, Women's Rights, Consumption of Alcohol, the place of Farmers and Workers in the Industrial Economy, Race Relations, and more, all have been argued in Christian language and reasoning. Point: historical precedent allows the use of religious reasoning in public discourse, and by extension, in public policy.
On the other hand:
Fourth, the history of the United States is one of increasing religious diversification. In the early decades of the U.S., most Americans thought of our nation as somehow Protestant. However, from the Irish immigrations of the 1830s on through other waves of immigration Roman Catholicism has become an increasingly large body. The late 19th/early 20th century saw large numbers of Jews added through immigration to the small number already in place; also this period witnessed sizable immigration of Orthodox. With changes in immigration policy in the 1960s we have seen significant numbers of Asian religions such as Buddhism, and others such as Islam, become part of the American electorate. Point: in a republic/democracy such as ours, basing public policy on the beliefs of only one religion is becoming increasingly problematic.
Fifth, in spite of the validity of points one and two above, the founders did not seem to envision a nation whose laws were based solely on the dicta of one particular form of Christianity.
Conclusion: I confess I still am sorting this issue out in my mind. However, I hold the following: religious motivation and rhetoric and reasoning are proper in the public square, however, one particular sect or denomination cannot expect others to bow before it; public policy in a political system such as ours cannot be based solely on faith claims.
Next, I will try to come at the question from a philosophical angle.
A Waco Farmer wrote:
Once again, I applaud you for creating another wonderful resource; I agree completely with the history as you present it here. Excellent synopsis. You have framed the issue well. I look forward to hearing your extended thinking on the subject as it unfolds.