Liberty of Conscience

I'm think I might be in the blogging "zone". This will be my second post in the last 24 hours, a feat that deserves special recognition. I am currently reading a book titled Liberty of Conscience, by Martha Nussbaum. It is a book about America's religious tradition and the need to protect that tradition. I haven't finished the book yet so I may add or edit this blog as I move through the book, but her basic argument is that those who are overly hostile to religion and those that are over zealous about religion are hurting America and its tradition of religious equality. Issues of State and Church are part of our daily news, and they are hotly debated by those on differing sides of the issue. Should prayer be allowed in school? Should the ten commandments be allowed to display in public buildings like a court house? Should we have In God We Trust on our coins and One Nation Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Obviously, any answer to these questions is subjective in nature--even though I think my opinion on the matter is correct--but in spite of said subjectivity, we need clearly defined objectives for any rule or law around such questions.

Nussbaum--who happens to be very religious--argues that any form of religion, from symbols to statements, should not be part of the public sphere. She says that when the ten commandments are posted in a courthouse, it is an unspoken statement of support for Christianity, creating an in-group and an out-group, alienating non-Christians. When the government added the words one nation under God to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's, it was move directed at amplifying the differences between Christian America and the Atheist Soviet Union. Many mistakenly believe that those words have been part of the Pledge from the very beginning, but they were added for political reasons, not religious ones. The Constitution doesn't mention God or Creator anywhere, and this is for a reason. The creators of the Constitution had come from Europe, where State support of religion had led to corruption and oppression, something our nations founders felt necessary to avoid. Philosophers like Locke, Kant, John Rawls, and Nussbaum make compelling arguments for a complete WALL between State and religion.

Nussbaum frequently cites the example of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. He was a very religious person, but he believed every single human being deserves the liberty of conscience--that is, the sacred right of trying to find the meaning of this life. He happened to be far ahead of his time, as he accepted all kinds of people in Rhode Island, even making laws that prohibited the acquisition of Indian land. Williams became a good friend to the the Indians of Rhode Island, treating them as equals, even though he considered their beliefs to be erroneous, he respect their liberty of conscience. Nussbaum argues that we need to regain the respect for this liberty of conscience, avoiding a silent caste system created by religion. As more and more people migrate to the United States from Asian countries--where many religions aren't monotheistic--even the mention of the protection of a single God can be alienating. Atheists are viewed in a more negative light than any other group of Americans--which is baffling, considering many atheists are extremely active in the promotion of human rights and equality for all--but due to the fact that their liberty of conscience has led them to believe differently, they are viewed in a very negative way.

Nussbaum holds positions in the University of Chicago's Law School, Divinity School, and Philosophy department, with Masters and Doctoral degrees from Harvard. It is refreshing to see a brilliant, religious person argue for the equal treatment of those with different beliefs. I completely agree with her argument that allowing the liberty of conscience in individuals is necessary, and prohibiting any form of State sponsorship is imperative for liberty of conscience to be truly protected. The role of government is to protect our basic rights, not to institute moral laws and not to subtly establish religious preference. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political philosophy and I believe that anyone--from the most hard-core Mormon to the most hard-core atheist--would find this book convincing.