Skip to main content

War on Religion?

Over the last few weeks the news has been full of controversy about the intersection between religion and government. The catalyst was a ruling regarding medial insurance coverage, but since then the 'debate' has grown to a broader concern of government interfering in individuals religious practices.

I would never claim that this is a simple issue, but I also don't believe that there is a systematic attack or war on religion by government, as claimed by Newt Gingrich among others..

Of course there is reason to fear such an attack. History is filled with examples of governments outlawing and attacking religion. Mexico, the Soviet Union and China are good examples.

But our government has religious freedom guaranteed in the constitution, along with a requirement in the first amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." And this isn't a hollow promise as demonstrated by numerous lawsuits and court rulings.

The problem is that it's not always clear how to accomplish these two requirements. There's a lot of grey between the black and white, so this debate will continue indefinitely. Unfortunately, at least the public debate seems rarely to be conducted as a respectful conversation.

From the left the goal sometimes seems to be a desire to completely exclude religion, even though the great majority of citizens are religious. On the other hand, the religious arguments appear to be more a desire to protect or promote a particular religion or even belief.

For instance, last year's demand to prevent the creation of an Islamic community center in New York City would seem to be a clear violation of the first amendment. And within the Christian community politicians can be very selective when quoting religious arguments. For an example take a look at an article by Juan Cole titled "Top 10 Catholic Teachings Santorum Rejects while Obsessing About Birth Control".

To me the fundamental issue is that religion, by it's nature, is faith based and therefore not subject to any objective test for legitimacy. This means that I'm free to invent any religion I please and then claim protection from the first amendment. At some point the public good will trump individual belief and the result will be an incursion by government. Recent examples include Warren Jeffs conviction for statutory rape or the murder conviction of Muzzammil Hassan.

So what about the specific issue of insurance, birth control, and religious institutions? I have no idea what the 'correct' solution is, but I doubt that the issue is simple or that there's an obvious fix that would satisfy everyone. I just wish that the public debate would consist of reasoned arguments rather than attacks on individuals or sensational claims.


Popular posts from this blog

Lets Cut Taxes!

The Texas legislature is in session and a tax cut is on the agenda with two competing proposals. One is to reduce property taxes and the other is to reduce sales taxes. Which one is the best?

I've been complaining about property taxes for years, and since I'm close to retirement I see property taxes as an unending, uncontrollable, and increasing drain on my future fixed income. Sales taxes on the other hand are proportional to my spending, and so somewhat controllable. That's why I'd prefer the property tax cut.

But on further reflection I changed my mind. Here's why...

If government is going to work it needs to be fair, but historians and economists know that this isn't the natural order of things. Throughout history wealth has tended to become concentrated. People in power naturally act in their own self interest, and the result is to further increase their power and wealth. I don't see this as intentionally evil. It's simply the result of rational (a…

Free market fixes for climate change?

In her recent article for the Chicago Tribune titled "End climate change scare tactics; try free market fixes" Rachel Marsden dismisses President Obama's recent concerns about climate change as a threat to global security and goes on to suggest that although there is no way to control the earth's climate we can adjust by allowing multinational corporations to conquer the environment. Both of these claims seem misguided to me for a number of reasons.

As to the concern about security and the environment there are many documented cases of destruction of the environment by human action and subsequent societal collapse. The story of Easter Island is a good example, and may serve as a miniature version of what could happen globally.

As the earth's climate changes, areas that were marginally able to support the local population will suffer. And unfortunately the results are not self contained. Collapse results in lawlessness, chaos, and refugees who naturally head for t…