In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race -- changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next -- so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American.
Now, there's nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments.
The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.
There's nothing wrong with one's opinions and decisions being informed by one's religious beliefs. To ask someone to go against those beliefs simply because of how they are arrived at is asking him or her to violate their integrity.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with his statement that "Europe is one of the freest precincts on the planet." Why this is so I leave as an exercise for the reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment