Blogs For Victory

Father Neuhaus explains:

Any time is a good time, but this election is a particularly good time, to review some basics about the free exercise of religion in this American constitutional order

More than he wanted to be remembered for having been president, Mr. Jefferson wanted to be remembered as the author of the Virginia “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.” In the text of the bill he underlined this sentence: “The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.” In a republic of free citizens, every opinion, every prejudice, every aspiration, every moral argument has access to the public square in which we deliberate the ordering of our life together.

“The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.” And yet civil government is ordered by, and derives its legitimacy from, the opinions of the citizenry. Precisely here do we discover the novelty of the American experiment, the unique contribution of what the Founders called this novus ordo seclorum, a new order for the ages. Never before in human history had any government denied itself jurisdiction, whether limited or total, over that on which it entirely depends, the opinion of its people.

That was the point forcefully made by Lincoln in his dispute with Judge Douglas over slavery. Douglas stubbornly held to the Dred Scott decision as the law of the land. Lincoln had the deeper insight into how this republic was designed to work. “In this age, and this country,” Lincoln said, “public sentiment is every thing. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the inforcement of these, else impossible.”

The question of religion’s place in the public square is not, first of all, a question of First Amendment law. It is first of all a question of understanding the theory and practice of democratic governance. Citizens are the bearers of opinion, including opinion shaped by or espousing religious belief, and citizens have equal access to the public square. In this representative democracy, the state is forbidden to determine which convictions and moral judgments may be proposed for public deliberation. Through a constitutionally ordered and representative process, the people will deliberate and the people will decide.

In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being religious than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is, or at least there ought to be, no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified thing that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who appeal to religion in public.

As with individual citizens, so also with the associations that citizens form to advance their opinions. Religious institutions may understand themselves to be brought into being by God, as the Catholic Church certainly does understand herself, but for the purposes of this democratic polity they are free associations of citizens. As such, they are guaranteed the same access to the public square as are the citizens who comprise them. It matters not at all that their purpose is to advance religion, any more than it matters that other associations would advance the interests of business or labor or radical feminism or animal rights or whatever.

For purposes of democratic theory and practice, it matters not at all whether these religious associations are large or small, whether they reflect the views of a majority or minority, whether we think their opinions bizarre or enlightened. What opinions these associations seek to advance in order to influence our common life is entirely and without remainder the business of citizens who freely adhere to such associations. It is none of the business of the state. Religious associations, like other associations, give corporate expression to the opinions of people and, as Mr. Jefferson said, “the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.”

Agreed.

The fundamental flaw in liberal thinking on matters of religion in the public square is that they view the First Amendment as protecting government from religion, when it actually protects religion – and, indeed, all opinion within reasonable limits – from government. Liberals quake with fear at the thought of a pastor giving a prayer at a public school graduation ceremony (or, at least, I presume they do, given how hard they fight against such things), thinking that such a thing means that religion is being established and thus compelled upon the citizenry when all it really amount to is, well, a pastor saying a prayer. That is, a pastor offering up his opinion in the public square at the invitation of those who set up the particular event. No harm, no foul; it would only be an imposition by government if the government insisted upon a positive affirmation in favor of the pastor’s opinion by the gathered citizenry.

When you get down to it, a great deal (and, perhaps, most) of our political difficulties stem from similar liberal misunderstandings of how things work – what truth is, what happened in the past, why people believe certain ways, etc, etc, etc. Liberals make absurd arguments about religion in the public square because they really don’t know anything about religion, government or the rights of people in a democratically governed republic. Hopefully at least one or two liberals, upon reading Fr. Neuhaus’ statement, will start to wise up.

Not that I’m holding my breath, or anything…