Richard W. Garnett argues that religion is righteously becoming more involved in state affairs and in public policy. He characterizes religion as “America’s real national pastime” and states that “religious faith has always played a role in shaping policy.” (Garnet, 1) With such controversial arguments one should expect the author to provide substantial empirical evidence supporting his claim. He does not, and instead he presents himself as an authority on the topic. He states, “ From the outset…[we] have known that faith and public policy are and cannot be entirely separate.” (Garnet, 2) This statement shows that Garnett is not only completely biased, but also disconnected from mainstream America. I am not implying that my view is the most common throughout the US, but that Garnett’s use of the pronoun “we” throughout the text shows a vast generalization of American beliefs. The truth is that many of Americans believe that the separation of church and state is possible as the constitution and the founding fathers intended. Even though creating these distinctions may be complicated at times, it does not mean that we should simply give up and allow religion to have a greater influence on public policy.
When referring to past congressional elections, Garnett states that religious voters “helped deliver it back to the Democrats in 2006.” He fails to acknowledge that there are hundreds of different arguments that try to explain why the Republicans lost their majority in congress, like problems in the war or the recent downfall of the economy, and Garnett does not even bother to present a poll to give validity to his view of the election. It is evident that Garnett’s view of politics is short sighted and biased because he over simplifies facts, like he did with the 2006 congressional election, in order to “prove” his point. He even goes on to define what the constitution intends when referring to the separation of church and state. Garnett states, “ What separation of church and state demands is that governments accept and respect the distinctiveness and independence of religious institutions and communities.” (Garnett, 15) Statements like these definitely show courage on the author’s part, but also make clear the ineffectiveness of his arguments. In my opinion, we should leave the job of interpreting the constitution to the Judicial Branch and the writings of the founding fathers and not to biased law professors, like Garnett, who say that they have an understanding of mainstream America when they truly don’t. American society is so diverse and complex that stating such sided arguments without effective use of evidence shows recklessness on the author’s part and makes this article just a well elaborated and biased rant.
original article can be found at: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/our-real-nation.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I think the author of the blog misses some of the points or at least some key aspects. First, this is a blog they are responding to. It's not suspect to the normally high standards of academic writing. I don't excuse Garnetts overlooking the need for evidence for a convincing argument, but normally all blogs are, are biased rants. Second, the audience has to be assumed to understanding what the collective "we" is. It may be other law professors or academics, but the "we" is his audience that is already associated with the subject. Just to provide some evidence or his point, in 2001 City University of New York Graduate Center's survey shows at least 3/4 consider themselves Christian and only 14% of Americans consider themselves non-religious. Moreover, the religious right vote has given democrats political authority, another argument is, is because they have not turned out as they had in the past. The main argument I wish to push, that I think Garnett needed to hash out more and that the author overlooked, was the power religious identity has over individuals' lives both secular and spiritual.
I’d have to agree with Garnett (who agrees with Rich Neuhaus) that there is nothing un-American, and nothing new, about religious believers ideals, claims and commitments in public life. He’s right, but Garnett forgets that the way today’s followers of Jerry Faldwell take to the streets is more offensive than it would have been centuries ago in an almost entirely Christian country. Now America is more diverse than ever. Yes, there is a Christian majority but there are also millions of Jews, hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and thousands of other religious followers in America (Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans).
I also agree with Garnett that the religiously backed political debates “will not — and, in a free and diverse society, should not — end anytime soon.” Garnett has me and other readers with this justification because he’s aligning free speech with freedom to persecute religious/non religious minorities. Garnett has a constitutional view that (Christian) religion is the norm, the default, and that the government should not encroach upon it. But here Garnett forgets that there are religions besides Protestant Christians. What happens when the visual deity of Christ himself on a public square offends a Muslim? Garnett seems to think opponents of, for example, a crèche, are fighting to maintain a “wall of separation” this is not necessarily so. Pushing Christianity on citizens is establishment of Christianity as “status quo” and it is offensive to our diverse religious identity.
Worst of all is the blasphemous stance Garnett takes against America’s real past time: Go BoSox, with any luck you can wrap up your playoff spot before you even return to Fenway this week.
I whole heartedly agree with the main point from Eduardo’s post: Garnett presents vague, oversimplified statements without any factual support. Eduardo attacks the author’s statements by questioning their validity and lack of evidence. A key example of an oversimplified statement from the post deals with the 2006 Congressional elections. Because the Democrats won, Garnett makes the giant leap to the fact that religion must have determined the win, without any evidence to substantiate such a claim. Garnett fails to point out that in 2006, there lacked an issue that energized conservative’s, particularly religious conservatives. One could argue with this drought of issues that the religious right cared passionately about, perhaps they didn’t vote in the large numbers as they did in 2004 conceding to those who were more inclined to vote for Democrats who promised a better economy and end to the war in Iraq, as briefly mentioned by Eduardo.
I come away from reading Garnett's article with an overwhelming feeling of "so what"? The author makes several obvious points concerning how much we like to talk about religion and politics and their separation (or integration, whichever the case may be), and doesn't really present us with an argument at all. Who exactly is Garnett trying to convince that Americans love these types of discussions? Who is claiming that we don't like to talk about those subjects? For me, this article is just a (tame) rant without any real thought-provoking substance.
After reading the blog post “Is he talking about America?,” by Eduardol, I have some discrepancies with the claims given in the post. The claims in question are that the separation of church and state is an absolute barrier, the way in which Garnett reads the constitution, and the job of the judicial branch is to interpret the constitution.
In our constitution, there is no specific barrier of an impenetrable wall between church and state. The first amendment reads that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” This does not impose a barricade between negotiations between the church and state. Instead, it denies congress the power to “respect an establishment of religion.” The idea of complete separation may have been the idea of Madison and Jefferson, but it was never put into the constitution. Without Madison and Jefferson alive, we are not able to get their entire take on their intentions of the first amendment. However, we are granted the pleasure of having access to their writings where they do call for a complete separation of church and state. This goes onto my next point of reading the constitution.
The idea of interpreting the constitution is when we attempt to make sense of it. There are different was to view the constitution, but the one I believe to be most appropriate, along with Justice Scalia, is that we must read the constitution in a textual sense. What this means is that we do not interpret the words, we read them for what they are on the page.
Finally, the author suggests that it is the job of the judicial branch to interpret the constitution. Again, we should not interpret we should read it textually. Also, I believe that it is the role of all levels of government to “interpret” (read) the constitution and base their decisions solely from the constitution. Without reference to the constitution, it would cause a great influx of court cases that would likely overwhelm the judicial branch.
My criticism of the post “Is he talking about America?” is similar to some of the claims raised by Tyler, only I would venture to go a step farther and disagree with author’s assertion that “[t]he truth is that many of Americans believe that the separation of church and state is possible as the constitution and the founding fathers intended.” I believe that this statement is historically inaccurate and such a view is inconsistent with political views during the drafting of the Constitution. Most historical documents and historians suggest that the founders’ concept of separation between church and state was much different than more modern concepts. Many of the founders’ saw religion as something that was on some level entwined with the state and some even viewed religion, generally speaking, Christianity as something that should be supported by the state. Further, precedent strongly suggests that Jefferson’s “wall of separation” is an un-pragmatic ideal that the courts have often attempted, without success, to put into practice. Thus, we are left with the question is separation of church and state really possible as the author suggests? I would argue that the author has failed to provide sufficient evidence to argue that this is the case.
I have to agree with many of the arguments and criticisms already made by Tyler and Katharine, as well as add a few of my own. First of all, Eduardo makes it sound as though Garnett characterizes religion itself as “the national pastime.” However, this is truly misleading; what Garnett actually says is this: “America's real national pastime is, and has long been, arguing about the place of religion in politics.” Garnett is no some religious fanatic as Eduardo depicts him, but rather an academic promoting discussion concerning the proper place for religion in today’s society. Many people who commented afterward argue that Garnett did not make a point in his article. I would agree with this, because it seems that Garnett wrote the piece in order to prompt thought and discussion about the topic from his readers, not to take a particular side on the issue. Based on the comments and discussion that this post had already generated on this blog alone, I would say that Garnett has been quite successful. Eduardo goes on to criticize Garnett by saying, “Even though creating these distinctions may be complicated at times, it does not mean that we should simply give up and allow religion to have a greater influence on public policy.” Garnett is not advertising that we give up, in fact he is saying quite the opposite. At the end of his article, he writes, “If the past quarter-century is any indication, it would seem that bright and busy times — another 25 years, at least — are ahead for our national pastime.” Remembering that Garnett characterizes our national pastime as arguing about the place of religion and politics, Garnett thus concludes his article by encouraging the reader to continue thinking and arguing about the solution to problems of the relationship between church and state. Nowhere does Garnett tell us to give up and accept things as the way they are, the way Eduardo would have us believe.
Post a Comment