The well-known evangelical theologian and historian John Stackhouse has added his name to the ranks of Christians who don’t find much to like about the Manhattan Declaration. There is a twist in this case, though. He isn’t complaining about the alliance between evangelicals and Catholics, for example. (Thank you, Lord.)
However, one of Dr. Stackhouse’s major objections is equally perplexing. While he declares himself to be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, he believes the call to enshrine those positions in the law is “philosophically and politically incoherent” if one is simultaneously calling for religious liberty (which the signers of the Manhattan Declaration do).
Before writing those words, Stackhouse might at least have thought a few moments about who we’re talking about. Robert George is one of the main movers and shakers on this document. And he happens to be a very important political philosopher in the American academy.
Now, disagreeing with Robert George is never evidence that one is wrong. So what if Prof. George is a political philosopher of the top rank? He certainly could be guilty of holding a “philosophically and politically incoherent” view on something. Surely, he could. And perhaps Dr. Stackhouse would be the guy with the right cut in his jib to effectively point that out.
But let’s consider the claim. Does calling for religious liberty mean that one is disqualified from simultaneously attempting to make abortion illegal (to use one of his examples)?
I don’t think so. Let’s take the shortest route to dealing with this claim.
If embracing religious liberty means that we should never attempt to embody moral propositions into the law, then we should not embody religious liberty in the law because it is a moral proposition. A philosophy that leads to THAT result is incoherent. The person who argues for religious liberty AND for other moral propositions in the law is on pretty sound footing in the vast majority of instances.
But if that seems like a cheap shot, we can go further. Why do we value religious liberty? We value religious liberty because we believe human beings possess an inherent dignity that entitles them to certain rights. For a very large number of people, quite likely an absolute majority, our rights come from God. Because God gives us certain rights, it is not the place of the state to abrogate them. But regardless of whether we claim our rights come from God, we have embraced religious liberty as a right. It is in tension with other rights. It is not a trump card. We do not accept any religious claim that would require freedom to kill another human being, for example.
Another right that we believe human beings have is the right to life. It is very easy and requires no recourse to scripture to demonstrate that the unborn child is, indeed, a human being. Given what I’ve said so far, is it at all difficult to understand that one could say religious liberty does not entail a right to be free from legal consequences for killing an unborn child?
No, it isn’t difficult. There is no incoherency in arguing for both religious liberty and for the legal right to life of an unborn child.
December 9th, 2009 | 9:55 am | #1
… he believes the call to enshrine those positions in the law is “philosophically and politically incoherent” if one is simultaneously calling for religious liberty …
Some years back, there was a case in a Florida neighborhood where some Santeras were stopped from sacrificing live chickens out in the street because they were violating city health and safety codes. They sued the city on the basis of the first amendment. I’m not making this up. Does anyone out there seriously think that “enshrining in law” health and safety concerns is incompatible with religious liberty?
Anyway, regardless of what bad things we might say about the M.D., and regardless of what good things John Stackhouse might do in general, his position here is completely confused. Your post is clearly argued and spot on.
December 9th, 2009 | 9:59 am | #2
Hey Bob, that was the Santerrians. And actually, they prevailed because they were able to show the city council targeted them.
But I agree with you. The idea behind religious liberty has always been that it exists in tension with other rights and that accommodations should be made where possible.
December 9th, 2009 | 12:14 pm | #3
Dr. Stackhouse didn’t think through his claims very well.
December 10th, 2009 | 3:08 pm | #4
It appears to me that you have not adequately presented or understood John Stackhouse’s concerns:
I’m conservatively prolife and have traditional Christian views of marriage also. But just because I think those views are right doesn’t entail that I believe they should be law. Deciding what ought to be law in a pluralistic, democratic society that welcomes immigrants from, and seeks to influence helpfully, countries all over the world, requires careful political theory…
Furthermore, America is not an officially Christian nation, but rather a Christian-majority one. So if we apply the same logic elsewhere, then Muslim-majority countries should enshrine shari’ah as their laws, since Muslims are equally convinced that shari’ah is right, and should brook no exceptions for non-Muslims…
Such authorship confirms the sense that the project of building a “Christian America” according to the values of the Religious Right, rather than building the best possible pluralist and free society, is the agenda guiding such a declaration. Others of us, however, will think that God’s will might run to greater liberty for all, greater tolerance for ambiguity and dissent, greater pluralism of belief and practice, and perhaps paradoxically therefore greater opportunity for the Gospel.
December 11th, 2009 | 7:51 am | #5
[...] over the Manhattan Declaration: R. C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, and Paul Edwards add their voices. Hunter Baker addresses John Stackhouse’s objection that the Declaration is “philosophically and [...]
December 11th, 2009 | 10:45 am | #6
[...] over the Manhattan Declaration: R. C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, and Paul Edwards add their voices. Hunter Baker addresses John Stackhouse’s objection that the Declaration is “philosophically and [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact