Column on Religion and Politics

Is Religious Politics Libertarian?
In many ways the principles of a fully free society are the most
hospitable to the great variety of faithful in a large society. The main
reason for this is that in such a free society the right to private
property is strictly protected. Even more, the strict protection of the
right to private property serves religion well because it establishes a
culture of tolerance and non-interference among the different faithful.
Tolerance, of course, isn’t acceptance–I can tolerate your weird jokes or
garb without considering them desirable. However, I will not do anything
against you because you make such jokes and wear such garb. I’ll leave you
be. And in a free society members of a religions order must be tolerate
towards those of another even if they disapprove of them so long as they
carry on within their sphere, their private domain.
Some object, saying that such tolerance amounts to encouragement but this
is really quote wrong. If I tolerate your strange clothes I by no stretch
of the imagination encourage you to wear it. What I am doing is respecting
your right to your life, liberty, and private property–I refuse to
interfere with you. Not at all the same as approving of what you do!
Most religions are relatively uncommitted to the kind of political system
under which they can function and be practiced. As long as the government
does not ban their rituals, there is no conflict between state and church.
Obviously, if a particular faith demanded that every Sunday a young child
be sacrificed to God, this would be prohibited in a free society. That’s
not religious freedom but religions oppression (unless it is an adult who
voluntarily submits to such a sacrifice). But apart from such barbaric
religious practices nearly everything adults might choose to do within the
domain of their church can co-exist with the principles and citizens of a
fully free society.
The few exceptions include religions faiths that demand that aggressive
actions must be taken by the faithful toward some who are not among the
faithful. Thus if a religious group embarked upon attacks on gays or
gamblers or meat-eaters or those who would abort a fetus before it becomes
a biological (as distinct from religiously understood) human being (around
the 25th week of pregnancy), that group’s practices would be banned. Not
because of religious discrimination but because of the fact that everyone
has the right to life, liberty, property, etc., and the violation of these
rights constitutes illegal conduct in a free society. It is not religions
discrimination to prohibit the sacrifice of a child at some holiday! No
one may do that!
Also, if a given religion accepts the idea that its faithful must follow
an edict from its good book that amounts to the violation of human rights,
that religion may not carry out this edict. If a religion holds that God
demands that gays or gamblers or divorced people must be penalized,
treated badly by the political authorities, in a free society this will
not be acceptable.
There are many benefits to religions from living in a free society but one
will not be available, namely, to forcibly establish a homogeneous culture
that follows that religion’s dictates and none other. Such imperialism is
just what some religions–or at least factions of religions–insist upon
and they will not get it from citizens of a fully free society. The
faithful who insist on such hegemony will simply not be satisfied. If
their mission is to coerce everyone to follow their way–not just those of
the faithful but everyone else–they will be rebuffed, opposed and if they
take action to fulfill their mission, they will become criminals.
The laws of a fully free society are based on human nature, not on
particular, sectarian conceptions of human nature. These laws are to
govern members of the community as human beings, not as members of some
particular religions faith. Of course, those of a religious faith may find
this frustrating, just as vegetarians are frustrated by the existence of
meat serving eateries and anti-gamblers by Las Vegas or Monte Carlo. But
that is no justification for attacking those who do not embrace their
edicts for proper living.
Human nature is such that it makes it possible for there to be millions of
different proper ways to live, as well as some very improper ones. One
needs to figure out which is which and fashion laws and public policy
accordingly.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s