Marci
In a message dated 6/10/2003 12:44:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom's "choice" theory appears to have much to commend it. Government should not, as I understand the theory, steer people from or towards religion in general or from or towards a particular religion. The problem, however, is that I think that the theory needs a base line, and, as everyone knows, I am inclined to look to history and experience for any base line. "Steering" or "choice" need context or setting.
Therefore, it is profitable, I think, to consider the question of "choice" or "steering" in light of our colonial and national experience. To the extent that our constitution reflects a political union (albeit relatively short-lived) of liberal and pietistic evangelical Protestants, then it might be useful to study closely the theological and the social dimensions of evangelizing, because evangelizing, Protestantizing, as I would put it, is what all of this is about. What does "choice" mean in a Protestant Empire? What does "choice" mean in a world of pan-Protestantism, a complex system of cooperation and competition in Protestantizing America? What does "choice" mean in a world in which suasion and attrition, with coercion lurking in the background, are seen as the dominant modes of effecting religious change and conversion to evangelical Protestantism?
Immediately a question presents itself, largely given the logic of a Protestant Empire: is it OK for an American government to steer people to evangelical Protestantism in general, but not OK to steer people to a particular form or denomination of evangelical Protestantism? The pre-incorporation cases make it clear (in the public school context) that the answer to the first question was yes, but the answer to the second was no. There was a dissenting view which answered both questions in the negative. The US Supreme Court has adopted the dissenting view, see McCollum, etc., but with an important proviso or exception -- Zorach, Mergens, and Good News. The question is whether the Court can or will continue to balance two lines of cases, or move, under the rubric of free speech, equality, or some such, to a broad and liberal accommodationist stance.
The value that I see in Tom's theory (and I do not mean hereby to exhaust all of its value) is that it operates as a brake on a galloping accommodationism of the evangelizing agenda of evangelical Protestants. The stubborn fact remains that the push for accommodationism largely comes from evangelical Protestants. The demerit, if such it be, of Tom's choice theory is that it obscures the fact that this push comes not from religionists generally, but from only some religionists, evangelical Protestants, to be precise, who throughout much of our history have seen America as their special preserve.
It is important to recall that while Catholics loudly objected to the early separationist common school cases, their voices have largely fallen mute in recent years. There has to be a reason for this, and I suspect that it is that Catholics have come to understand that accommodationism in this context provides far more benefit for evangelical Protestants than it does for Catholics. The tug or pull in the other direction is a deep and innate Catholic distaste for secularism. This is not unlike Catholic reaction to other Protestant Empire social reforms, a reaction that often changes over time as the full implications of the reform become clear through the prism of real world experience.
Catholic dalliances with accommodationism, therefore, have been problematic, to say the least. Other religious minorities have been far less prone than Catholics have been to find much virtue in accommodationism, and usually take a stand in favor of strategic secularism (better that there be no religion in the public square than the wrong religion). It is important to understand that accommodationism is, in real world terms, a way of restoring, refurbishing, renovating, and strengthening a social order in which evangelical Protestants set the agenda in the public square. The choice doctrine is helpful, for the reasons noted above. However, the real issue is whether and to what extent America shall be (again?) a Protestant Empire.
