The Church in the Public Space (Part 1)28.11.11
Aired on November 28, 2011
This editorial is taken from Prof. Randy David’s original article entitled “The Church in the Public Square” presented during the ISACC Fellows’ Gathering on August 26, 2011.
Downloads
Program Transcript - MP3 Audio
The Church in the Public Space (Part 1)
By Prof. Randy David
Despite the constitutional provision defining the separation of Church and State, a lot of confusion still attends the determination of religion’s proper place in the public square.
A strict interpretation of the constitutional provision would practically ban all profession or articulation of religious belief from the public square, in exchange for the protection and benefits religious groups receive from the State – such as tax-exemption for the clergy and religious institutions. This compromise, which regulates religion’s place in the public square, may be seen as a way of averting the kind of hostilities that flared up in the past among various religious groups.
The reverse of this view, on the other hand, would confer on the Church or other ecclesiastical organizations the right to veto legal measures that are deemed morally objectionable to a dominant moral community.
Somewhere in-between these two extreme positions is the view that would give to religious groups the right to invoke their beliefs in an ongoing political debate, while warning them against bringing their ecclesiastical power or authority to bear upon the political process. For example, no church should be able to dictate to its followers whom they should vote for in a political exercise like an election. By the same token, no church should be able to use threats of ecclesiastical sanctions like ex-communication against individuals who do not subscribe to the Church’s position on a political issue being debated.
The latitude for Church participation in ongoing political debates is broad enough as it exists today. Religious groups and ecclesiastical organizations are within their rights to participate in political discussions and to cite the Scriptures or religious doctrine as grounds for opposing any proposed legislation. This does not, in itself, constitute meddling in political affairs. There is nothing in our laws or Constitution that requires people of faith to check their religious conviction at the door before they can participate in political discussions. By the same token do we uphold the right of ideologically-inclined individuals to invoke Marx or Mao or John Stuart Mill to buttress their arguments in support of certain public measures.
Indeed, some people may be quickly persuaded by the mere citation of doctrinal or ideological authority. But, in general, people demand arguments more solid than mere citations of doctrine or passages from a great figure to be convinced about a certain position. What this tells us is that, for as long as we are communicating within the political system, arguments that draw mainly from religious belief will not be sufficient. We need to find ways to express those same convictions in a language that can be understood by people who do not share our religious beliefs. Only thus can we prevent religion from being a “conversation-stopper”.
This editorial is taken from Prof. Randy David’s original article entitled “The Church in the Public Square” presented during the ISACC Fellows’ Gathering on August 26, 2011.