 |
 |
Editor:
Jason Pyle's column ("Scrutinize religions' intentions regarding social policy," Nov. 18) struck me as ironic and disturbing. My hunch is that he has verbalized some of the deeply entrenched suspicions of secular modern people toward those who are religious and organizations formed by them. In this case the subject has to do with the voice of religious persons about public policy.
After noting the "tremendous money and large voting constituencies" of politically active organizations that have a distinctly religious orientation (specifically, "the Christian Coalition and similar organizations"), he writes that they "pose a real and serious threat to the social and individual freedoms we enjoy in this country." This is inaccurate and false. For one, there is no consensus that the Christian Coalition represents the "Christian position" on political questions of the day. Secondly, and more importantly, just what makes religious organizations (and people) active in the public affairs particularly sinister to freedom? Are all religious organizations - "conservative" and "liberal" - included in this sweeping generalization? Regardless of how Mr. Pyle may answer this, he has left the charge totally unsubstantiated.
That the rhetoric about "moral values" is often just empty rhetoric I do not dispute. But am I to understand that the "defense of morals in this country" is always motivated by ignorance and some evil personal agenda of those speaking out for it? As to this supposed "point" of the concept of the "separation of church and state," I propose that the Founders meant something quite different than what is spouted off with such assurance today.
The original intent of this revolutionary concept was to disentangle the institutional that had long been assumed (since ancient times) as proper between the church and organs of government. It was upon these moral/theological concepts that such notions as the innate dignity of human persons, respect for law and leaders, tolerance of others, and even the right to rebel against an unjust ruler. It was exactly because the Founders believed such transcendent moral values to be true that they envisioned such a breathtaking experiment in representative government! This is very far from alienating the religious moral principles derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition for the governance of the state that is taken as something of an absolute today.
Again I quote Mr. Pyle, "Just like a group of adolescents that have gotten into trouble in the past, religious organizations need to be scrutinized around their intentions regarding social policy. It is simply a matter of minding historical behavior." The arrogant presumption drips off the page. Just who or what should be responsible to "scrutinize" these "adolescent" trouble makers? Are the intentions of those devoted to secularism so pure as to warrant them self-appointed baby-sitters for the social ideas of religious institutions? (Let us remember that in our century the scrutiny of Nazi's and Stalin was responsible for the death of at least 12 million people.)
I suggest that Mr. Pyle scrutinize his own ideas about religion in general before prescribing what ought to be done with institutions (and thus people) of religious orientation. They not only have full right to contribute to public debate on issues and public policy but also bring insights and values to living peacefully together in America.
Walter J. Caywood
religious studies junior
|
|
|