fbpx

Defending Religion as a Public Good

The Supreme Court’s ruling in American Legion v. American Humanists Association prevented a wrong, but missed an opportunity to do some good.

The high court was right to thwart the aggressive iconoclasm of the Humanists, who sought to have the Bladensburg Memorial Cross removed, demolished, or maimed, claiming that its presence on public property violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Yet the justices should also have probed more deeply and reconsidered a flawed understanding of the Establishment Clause that has distorted our thinking about the role of religion in politics for decades.

Writing for the majority, Justice Alito argued persuasively that the cross need not be understood as having a religious purpose. It is, he said, primarily a reminder of the overseas graves of American soldiers who perished in the First World War, and hence of the sacrifices they made for their country. And this, he concluded, is a sufficiently secular purpose for the cross to be upheld under the Establishment Clause.

Fair enough. But it is not really clear that the Establishment Clause either requires every public act to have a secular purpose or prohibits any public act that has a religious purpose.

The text forbids any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” But a governmental action—especially, as Justice Thomas noted in his concurrence, a non-coercive one—might promote religion without going so far as to establish a religion or to respect an establishment of religion.

This was a key point of then-Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree, a 1985 school prayer case. As Rehnquist noted, the Founders—the generation of men who wrote and ratified the First Amendment—supported a number of public acts of a religious character. The First Congress—the same Congress that drafted the language of the Establishment Clause—called upon President George Washington to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of almighty God.” Washington complied, issuing a proclamation recommending Thursday, November 26th, 1789, as a day “to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.” Similar proclamations were made by Presidents John Adams and James Madison. Moreover, as Rehnquist pointed out, the First Congress re-enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which held that “[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” The Supreme Court would do well to review Rehnquist’s 1985 dissent, as well as the whole body of subsequent scholarship that calls into question the idea that the Establishment Clause strictly forbids the government to do anything with a religious purpose.

In addition, the Court’s insistence on asking whether an act of the government has a secular or a religious purpose overlooks the very real possibility that it might have both. We can learn this from one of the greatest commentators on American politics, Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America.

Tocqueville closely considered the role of religion in American politics. On the one hand, he made clear that, for the purposes of his book, he was not particularly interested in the theological truth or falsity of any particular religious beliefs. On the other hand, he also held that religion “should be considered the first” of America’s “political institutions” and even that America should seek to “maintain Christianity . . . at all cost.”

This paradox is explained by Tocqueville’s belief that religion—whatever it may do for the individual soul in the hereafter—serves the political interests of democracy in the here and now. Religion, Tocqueville believed, is a necessary foundation for public justice. Without it, without a sense of God existing above the people and judging them, the people might conclude that they are free to do anything they please, with the result that democracy would degenerate into majority tyranny.

Majority tyranny, however, was not the only grave threat to freedom that Tocqueville discerned in modern democracy. There is also the danger that the people might willingly submit themselves to a despotic government. And, he contended, they are more likely to do so if they have lost their religious convictions. In the absence of religion, Tocqueville contended, human beings will be tormented by doubt about the most important questions, such as their duties to each other and to the community. “They are worried and worn out by the constant restlessness of everything,” and there is therefore a danger that, in their desire to find some stability and certainty, they will “hand themselves over to a master.”

Moreover, Tocqueville held, only religion can elevate the souls of democratic citizens above the vulgar materialism that is fostered by democratic prosperity—a greed for physical comforts that threatens freedom by distracting citizens from political participation. On Tocqueville’s view, then, a public spirited statesman might well act to promote religion for secular reasons.

This same way of thinking informs George Washington’s celebrated “Farewell Address.” Here, the father of our country instructed his fellow Americans that “religious principle” is a necessary foundation of “national morality,” and that religion and morality are together the “indispensable supports” of the “dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity.” Accordingly, he concluded, the “mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.”

From Tocqueville and Washington’s teaching, it follows that a public policy could have both a religious and a secular purpose. A responsible political leader might act to promote religion for secular reasons, on the understanding that religion is necessary to a healthy democracy. Our country, and its Supreme Court, should reconsider this venerable, reasonable, and perfectly constitutional understanding of religion’s role in our public life.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on August 06, 2019 at 08:37:45 am

I would say that this runs afoul of some of the same problems as confront all "public goods" arguments. How do we know there is "market failure" (not specifically the author's phrase in this essay, but the common one) in regard to religion? Europe has state sponsorship of religion and is a very secular place; America does not and is highly (even notoriously) religious. See the writings of Rodney Stark. (Example: Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith, University of California Press, 2000.)

read full comment
Image of David L Potts
David L Potts
on August 06, 2019 at 10:32:36 am

Are religious people more likely to believe in the Miranda warning? The exclusionary rule? The Apprendi Rule? The Brady doctrine? The anti-commandeering principle? the dormant commerce clause?

Which liberties, privacy, and due process are religious people more likely to believe in that makes religion a public good?

read full comment
Image of Edmondson Burke
Edmondson Burke
on August 06, 2019 at 17:27:30 pm

The question isn't "Can something have both a religious and secular purpose?"

The question is "Can you replace a religious message or symbol with a secular purpose with a purely non-religious message or symbol?"

For instance, can you promote free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, private land ownership, private business ownership, homeschooling, etc. with non-religious messages, symbols, etc.?

If you're putting up the cross to honor those who fight and died for our liberties, can you do the same with a non-religious symbol? Can you give a speech honoring them without alluding to or mentioning religious beliefs, doctrines, etc.?

read full comment
Image of Jackson Kirby
Jackson Kirby
on August 06, 2019 at 22:42:19 pm

Here are the steps that are necessary for Congress to make a Law “respecting an establishment of religion”.

https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17

The Bladensburg Memorial Cross did not meet a single one of these requirements.

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on August 07, 2019 at 09:25:09 am

How about religions pay their taxes due & then we can be on even footing to talk public policy?

read full comment
Image of Robin Smith
Robin Smith
on August 07, 2019 at 16:29:13 pm

Well, I suppose that the churches can pay their taxes due AFTER all the (allegedly) non-profits (and allegedly NON_POLITICAL) pay their taxes due.

Sauce for the gander and all that, mate!

read full comment
Image of Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
on August 07, 2019 at 18:06:58 pm

Be specific. Exactly which religious beliefs lead to people being more supportive of individual rights, like the right to keep and bear arms, the right to use recreational drugs, sexual and reproductive freedom, right to wear what you want at a private school?

Is it belief in a god, afterlife, reincarnation, karma, fate, magic, time travel, the invisible hand?

Which supernatural, paranormal and/or religious beliefs increase the likelihood that people will be libertarian?

When you can tell us that, those beliefs can be promoted by government in monuments, school prayer, etc. Until then, we want separation of church and state.

read full comment
Image of Frank Benjamin
Frank Benjamin
on August 08, 2019 at 00:30:16 am

[…] Defending Religion as a Public Good Carson Holloway, Law and Liberty […]

read full comment
Image of PowerLinks 08.08.19 – Acton Institute PowerBlog
PowerLinks 08.08.19 – Acton Institute PowerBlog
on August 08, 2019 at 16:57:58 pm

Well, I suppose that the churches can pay their taxes due AFTER all the (allegedly) non-profits (and allegedly NON_POLITICAL) pay their taxes due.

Sauce for the gander and all that, mate!

I agree as a matter of policy--but not as a matter of law.

The goose/gander adage suggests the need to avoid discrimination--that is, to accord similar treatment to similarly-situated things. The First Amendment bans government establishment of religion. For better or worse, it doesn't ban government establishment of Little League teams. Thus, the two things are not similarly situated.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on August 08, 2019 at 17:15:51 pm

I sense that non-governmental organizations can promote civil society by providing a means by which people organize that is outside of government control. Catholic opposition to Communist Poland comes to mind.

By the same token, government arguably defends civil society by providing a means by which people organize outside of church control. State prosecution of pedophile priests comes to mind.

In short, a THICK society is a health society. The goal is not to eliminate all identity groups (and identity politics), but to provide so many that people will have multiple affiliations, and can readily emphasize one over another as circumstances change. You may identify with your religion, and your nation, and your city, and your ethnic group, and your gender, and you baseball team, and your NRA membership--and give greater or lesser emphasis to any of these identities as the salience of various issues rise and fall.

IN ADDITION TO THE BENEFITS THAT COME FROM SIMPLE AFFILIATION, perhaps religion provide certain uniquely desirable--or at least durable--attributes. When people are facing imminent death, religious considerations may prove more compelling than others. Thus, perhaps it's not surprising that the military has chaplains--the Establishment Clause notwithstanding.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on August 11, 2019 at 20:08:31 pm

If the Bladensburg Cross was a government establishment of religion, it would be gone already (and a pretty piss-poor and pathetic excuse for an establishment maneuver to boot).

read full comment
Image of Hektor Bleriot
Hektor Bleriot
on August 13, 2019 at 13:54:17 pm

NYT: Right-wing terrorists manifest a hunger for religion that conventional contemporary society fails to fill.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

Related