Brooke Allen’s argument that the government cannot and should not endorse any religious organization by providing it with taxpayer money is given a historical context that no one can truly argue with: no one can say that Madison did not believe what Allen says he did due to the large amount of primary evidence that both Allen and the all encompassing internet provide. I am a sucker for history and accordingly swoon at the mere mentioning of the name of any founding father or other great historical figure, but it is not me in particular, I’m guessing, that Allen was seeking to convince.
Allen does a great job of making his point: this country was not founded with support for religious groups, which makes sense considering the Anglican government from which we were fleeing and the religious, or lack there of, bases of the founding fathers (most were desists). It makes sense that they would not want to establish another religious government.
But Allen ignores the almost certain and clichéd rebuttal: the founding fathers also believed in slavery, and they were wrong about that. While this argument does sound somewhat shallow, it does have another, more serious, argument as its base: the founding fathers in their infinite wisdom created a Constitution and government that would allow for future generations to change the country in order to fit the new world and new beliefs that were sure to come.
While Allen’s historical argument pays tribute to history, this argument that the founding fathers made change possible also holds some historical ground on its own accord. Why is religion so much unlike the question of slavery? After all, slavery was endorsed by the founding fathers as was separation of church and state. Slavery was denying human rights and separation is denying funding for humanitarian charities. Who can argue against the good brought about by religious charities?
The easiest argument against this would be the slippery slope argument: that if we allow this part of the constitution to be challenged then what is next? Freedom of speech? Right to a jury? Who knows, it could be any one of them.
But in the end the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy because it argues against something that has yet to happen that may never happen by equating what is happening with what might.
Both sides can look to history for support it would seem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Comparison of separation of church and state with the evil of slavery may seem ludicrous at first glance, yet I believe that it highlights the mutability of political principle. Although as Brooke Allen argues, history can provide guidance to us, it should never become dogma. Allen's assertion that federal funding for religious organizations contradicts James Madison's interpretation of the Constitution is correct. However, using this precedent to decide all present and future rulings on the subject contradicts another fundamental principle of the Constitution: that the United States government is meant the change and adapt in order to better serve its purpose. And that purpose is, according to Madison himself, to safeguard and provide for the American people. Which principle is more sacred? Can the preservation of principle justify the obstruction of charity? Madison believed that the government would ultimately render the actions of the church "superfluous". Until his utopia is achieved, however, it is the duty of the government to protect the people by whatever means necessary, even if it means breaking a few rules.
The Constitution does lend itself to change, whether it be through interpretation of the articles or the addition of amendments to the Bill of rights. However, the document has stayed pretty consistent over the past 200 years. It specifically says in the first amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Establishment was, under the case of Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) decided to be any act that does not have a "secular legislative purpose", that advances or inhibits any religion, or that causes "excessive government entanglement" with religion. The appropriation of funds to religious institutions would, very clearly, break rules one and three of the "Lemon Test". I understand that no one should look at the constitution as if it were etched in stone, but doesn't the recentness of this court case defending the constitution speak to the fact that its principles, at least in regards tot he issue of separation of church and state, are still relevant?
Government functions on a base of morals that most of its people share. These morals are at times influenced by our religion or by our lack of religion. Nonetheless, there should be a clear difference between morals and religious beliefs. The article and the blog post correctly identify the reasons why the government should not involve itself directly with religious organizations, but then why does government provide special legislation for religious entities? I will answer this with another question. Can politicians separate their emotional personality from their functional personality? In the emotional personality we see the religious aspect and social predispositions, and in the rational aspect we observe the logical thinking process. As the article points out, President Clinton and President Bush focused on the emotional personality by putting forward legislation that intended to “create legal precedents for such advantages and to make religious groups eligible for numerous state and federal grants.” (Allen 1) It can also be said that the presidents were not acting under their emotional personality but rather under the rational personality because they analyzed the positive political repercussions that endorsing religious groups would bring. If this is true the cause of church’s involvement in state affairs does not rely on the government, but on us because we are the ones that are not acting with our rational mind. In the democratic system we make government be whatever we want it to be.
Post a Comment