What Motivates Opposition to Religious Liberty?
by Rick Plasterer, Juicy Ecumenism:
Michael Stokes Paulsen, professor of law at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, discussed the conflict over the doctrine of religious freedom at a presentation at the Family Research Council on July 21. What is crucially important in the present controversy over religious freedom, he believes, is understanding the beliefs and moral intuitions behind the different viewpoints people advance.
Paulsen found that there are essentially four approaches to religious freedom that have been taken. The first, important historically, is pre-modern state religion. In this doctrine, society believes that religious truth exists, that it can be known by all, and in particular that it can be known by the state. Deviations from true religion should not be tolerated. In a modified version, if there is tolerance, dissenters from the approved religion are significantly disadvantaged. This is the viewpoint of “Old Europe,” and also of contemporary Islamic movements.
Secondly, in an early modern view of religious freedom, religious truth is believed to exist, but the state cannot reliably know what it is. A general belief in a supreme personal being, and a commonly understood objective morality are part of this viewpoint, making one’s duty to God, whatever one thinks that is, inviolable and important. The government cannot establish religion, and free exercise of religion is “vigorously” respected. This, Paulsen pointed out, is the viewpoint of the United States Constitution. It gives the greatest scope for religious liberty, and is an originalist constitutional view.
A third viewpoint is religious tolerance by an indifferent society. People believe in the protection of religious liberty because people favor personal freedom generally. This writer would regard indifferent tolerance as the actual doctrine of the Supreme Court at the present time, beginning with the Everson vs. the Board of Education decision in 1947 (which said that the government may not “aid” either “all religion,” or any particular religion). Paulsen said that indifferent tolerance is a “weakened” doctrine of religious liberty. The underlying attitude toward religion is “gently condescending.” The result of this attitude is freedom for belief and expression, but “not conduct in opposition to the usual rules of the state.”
Finally, Paulsen held that while this country may effectively be at this third stage – indifferent toleration of religious belief and practice – there is some movement toward a fourth, final viewpoint, which is religious intolerance. According to this view, “religion is an affirmatively harmful thing.” Advancing this viewpoint would reflect the belief that religious doctrines are both untrue and harmful. Religion should enjoy no protection from the state, because protecting religion is “protecting delusions.”
Paulsen outlined four objections that are commonly heard to the vigorous religious liberty position of stage 2, which has historically been held in America:
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
