Michael Gerson has published an astute analysis of the current controversy south of the border over religious freedom: Catholics, contraceptives and John Locke. An excerpt:
One tradition of religious liberty contends that freedom of conscience is protected and advanced by the autonomy of religious groups. In this view, government should honor an institutional pluralism — the ability of people to associate, live and act in accordance with their religious beliefs, limited only by the clear requirements of public order. So Roger Williams welcomed Catholics and Quakers to the Rhode Island colony, arguing that a “Church or company of worshippers (whether true or false) . . . may dissent, divide, breake into Schismes and Factions, sue and implead each other at the Law, yea wholly breake up and dissolve into pieces and nothing, and yet the peace of the Citie not be in the least measure impaired or disturbed.”
There is another form of modern liberalism that defines freedom of conscience in purely personal terms. Only the individual and the state are real, at least when it comes to the law. And the state must often intervene to protect the individual from the oppression of illiberal social institutions, particularly religious ones.
This is the guiding philosophy of the American Civil Liberties Union. But as Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs, pointed out to me, this approach has roots in the Anglo American tradition of political philosophy. John Locke’s “Letter Concerning Toleration” urges legal respect for individual conscience because “everyone is orthodox to himself.” But Locke offered no tolerance for the institution of the Catholic Church: “That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince.” In Locke’s view, Catholics can worship as they wish as individuals, but their institution is a danger to the liberal order.
It seems that the Lockean influence has blinded many citizens of English-speaking democracies to the need for institutional religious freedom. Here is where we do well to support the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, led by my friend Stanley Carlson-Thies.
In the meantime, Kevin L. Boonstra has published an analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in S.L. v. Commission Scolaire des Chênes: LexView 76.0 – Whose Children Are They, Anyway? Controversies over religious freedom have erupted virtually simultaneously on both sides of the 49th parallel. Let us pray for justice in the two countries and elsewhere.
March 16th, 2012 | 12:18 am | #1
Gerson threatens to attack a straw man by making this his key question: “Why not impose this social consensus on all private institutions?”
March 17th, 2012 | 3:45 pm | #2
Gerson’s dichotomy of the public/private is true; religion is not merely a personal belief, and the government is not the only social institution worth protecting. That said, I do agree with you Ancius on the faultiness of Gerson’s key question. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a straw man, but rather a slippery slope.
There’s a tendency for people to think when the government imposes something on religious people that, “Well, if they can subsidize this thing that bothers religious people, then ANY atrocity can be justified!” Given the beyond bloated defense budget, a good deal of my tax revenue has likely gone to wars. I’m a pacifist; I find war morally objectionable. The government used my money to bail out the crooks on wall street; I certainly am not happy with that. I could point to any number of things the government does that I find morally objectionable. Yet I don’t feel like my freedom of religion is constantly under threat. We live in a society, which necessarily involves an intersection of beliefs that invariably result in someone being displeased.
With that in mind, yes, we should always make our voices heard. Freedom of speech is important. However, by having legislation passed against our favor we do not suddenly become a repressed minority. Christianity still has a massive influence on the US government, and we still make up the majority of the population. In some societies people face jail or death for their faith. It’s not the end of the world if our money has to go toward women’s health products that some find morally objectionable.
March 18th, 2012 | 10:07 am | #3
Defense is not a luxury product. Contraception is.
As for the crooks on wall street, please note that no philosophy has been invented that claims it is intrinsically immoral to give money to crooks on wall street.
March 18th, 2012 | 4:31 pm | #4
Jason,
First, I never claimed defense was a “luxury product;” I claimed killing other people is morally impermissible. I only brought it up not to show how it and contraception are alike but instead to show that I have to pay for lots of things I find immoral, yet I don’t act like I’m an oppressed minority.
Second, contraception is NOT a luxury product. It has multiple medical uses, not the least of which is moderating severely irregular periods that cause excessive bleeding and pain. Just because it’s called “the birth control pill” doesn’t mean that its only use is birth control.
Third, I could easily argue through virtue ethics that it’s wrong to reward immoral behavior. If we’re looking to improve people’s character, ignoring their faults and rewarding them anyway (which enables them to keep doing more immoral things; cf. the bonuses they keep giving themselves) is a morally wrong action.
I love it how many are so quick to defend Wall Street bankers, but women who want contraceptives for actual medical reasons are anti-religious zealots looking to impugn on our freedom.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact