The studying of the intersection of politics and religion often results in us using one to justify the other. Many times, people use religion to justify a plethora of political moves. We ask ourselves, when does this practice overstep the boundaries of separation of church and state. We have seen that in cases where children are involved, the government often errs on the side of separation. In other cases, though, the courts seem to justify religious practice through historical precedent.
What is also interesting is how church officials often try to preach for certain social programs. Des Moines radio talk show host, Jan Michaelson often discusses the differences between protestant and catholic angles towards welfare and other such government programs. I do not recall, though, a time in which religious figures have been so thunderous about their convictions toward social policy in the last fifty years since the consideration of the Paulson Bailout Plan.
Zenit, a web style news organization that reports on the happenings of the Catholic Church from Rome recently published an article showing a new voice in the debate over passage of a bailout plan. A group of U.S. Bishops that head up the Domestic Justice Conference have sent a letter to government officials urging consideration of five key elements when deciding what to do with this financial crisis we find ourselves in.
The central argument is that we ought to look out for the dignity of the human being with an emphasis on the economy working for the greater good of humanity. This narrative seems to run counter to the idea of capitalism. This may propose a danger to the economy as we know it, then. Our economy is founded on the Right to Fail. That means not everyone is guaranteed to win. The bishops seem to suggest that this is true, but that we must look out for the weakest of those in our economy. This is something that not only these religious leaders urge, but also something that a majority of those in the House decided on Monday. In my opinion, the bishops seem to be offering some good suggestions that are not entirely within the scope of capitalism.
So, within our intersection of politics and religion, how far are we willing to go. I am not ready to say that the bishops are economic experts, neither are they, but I am willing to accept that we have an obligation to fix the problem in a way that is dignified and does not condemn the innocent.
The Link: http://www.zenit.org/article-23752?l=english
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Josh brings up a good point when he asks how far we are willing to go concerning the separation of religion and politics. I agree that we should be concerned when it comes to using religion to justify government policies. If the only justification for a hypothetical government policy is a religious one, then that policy has no place in our society where there is a separation of church and state. Policies must have some other foundation or reason for being put into practice, other than relying on a religious justification based upon a particular religion or sect.
Josh also addresses the converse side of this issue, where bishops and priests incorporate social policies into their religious teachings. This is something we absolutely cannot regulate. Granted, we don’t have to rely upon the opinions of bishops and other religious officials when we’re enacting policies, but we cannot tell these officials what to preach and what not to preach. To do so would clearly be a violation of their First Amendment rights.
I enjoyed reading Josh's post and van's response. They each bring up good points. My 2 cents would include first, that I believe the concern the Religion Clause of the First Amendment is meant to address is "excess entanglement" of the state in religious affair and religious messages in state affairs. This does not necessarily mean there must always be a separation of church and state.
Here the bishops have given their opinion on a federal financial bill. I would be concerned if politicians started taking their cues directly from a group of bishops and voting along with the bishops' opinions. However, I question in this particular example, if the same people had presented a concern with the financial bill as just a (potentially secular) group of citizens. Should not the politicians, in that example, then way the concerns of his/her constituents and thus make a decision based on the best interest of those constituents?
Post a Comment