About.com Rating



Should the government use its power to encourage religion? Should the government use religion to encourage and strengthen moral values? Or does the Constitution prohibit such actions in the name of the separation of church and state?

Summary

Title: Farewell to Christendom: The Future of Church and State in America
Author: Thomas J. Curry
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0195145690

Pro:
? Underscores fact that government has no business with religion
? Critiques common 'accomodationist' positions and arguments

Con:
? Significant flaws in some of his arguments

Description:
? Analysis of the current status of church/state separation
? Argues that current separationist position misreads the nature of separation
? Also argues that 'accomodationist' position is flawed

Book Review

A large number of books have been published on this topic. Some argue that no such separation exists and that religion is necessary for a moral society, while others argue that separation is a positive good for both religion and society in general. Thomas J. Curry, a Catholic bishop, takes a unique perspective on this debate because he rejects both the ?accommodationist? and the ?separationist? labels normally applied to the two above groups. Although Curry comes down generally in favor of separation, he spends nearly the same amount of time arguing against the premises and ideas of both sides.

How is it that Curry can argue so well against those who would use the state to promote their religious beliefs but then also against the people who agree with his anti-accommodationist stance?

Curry?s position in this respect can be summarized by the following passage:

• ?In demanding neutrality between aiding and inhibiting religion, many constitutional scholars invite the Supreme Court to make its home in the dangerous no-man?s-land between these two. The concept of neutrality is not a useful one for Church-State relations.?

• ?It conjures up an image of government maintaining an impartial attitude, withholding assistance equally from all - and refraining from impeding any - of the parties to a conflict. ...The First Amendment renders government powerless, not neutral, in religious affairs. The role of the Court is to say what is secular, not what is religious; what is within the limited powers of the State, not what assists or impedes the Church. It has not been designated to solve the problem that bedeviled Christendom by settling the proper boundaries between Church and State, between sacred and secular.?

This position is interesting, useful, and ultimately flawed. Curry rephrases some key terms in the debate and in a manner which emphasizes some important issues. The government really doesn?t have any authority in religious matters, something which is very useful to keep in mind. Curry is right to point out that the use of the term ?neutral? could lead people to talk themselves into believing that some action might not ?really? qualify as helping or hurting religion and, therefore, it is permitted for the government to do.

Curry?s error, however, is in presuming that such ?neutral? actions really do exist - the same error that is made by people who try to take those same actions. Every such action will end up being partisan in some manner and hence either helping or hurting religion in some fashion. Curry?s error also lies in the fact that he seems to think that using the term ?neutral? must lead to such confusion. This is not the case, however - it is not a great leap to understand that ?neutrality? means not doing anything at all, even if some people do have problems remembering it.

The flaw in Curry?s argument is underscored when he says that the government can only decide what is secular and not what is religious. In reality, these are two sides of the same coin - any time the state says that something is secular it is also saying, at the same time, that it is not religious. Any time that the state says that something is not secular, it is also saying that it is religious. This is unavoidable and means that any government which separates the secular from the religious will end up having defined, even if implicitly, what is religious.

» Continue...