March 23, 2005
WOULDN'T WANT TO RUN AFOUL OF THE ANTICONSTITUTION (via Mike Daley):
Evangelicals Debate a Broadened Agenda: How Much Mixing of Religion and Politics Does the First Amendment Permit? (MICHAEL C. DORF, Mar. 16, 2005, Find Law)
At a Washington luncheon last week, the National Association of Evangelicals began debating a proposed "call to civic responsibility." If adopted, it would ask the organization's thirty million evangelical Christian members to take a liberal stand on issues such as environmental protection, racial equality, and distributive justice.In light of the recent success of conservatives in mobilizing evangelicals for their candidates based on opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, evangelical activism in favor of liberal causes has the potential to create a significant realignment in national politics.
Before liberals start dancing in the streets, however, they would do well to consider the separation of church and state. If that principle means anything, it must mean that efforts by religious groups to push their agenda on the state are potentially suspect, whether they favor conservative or liberal policies.
Fortunately it doesn't mean anything under our constitutional regime. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 23, 2005 11:03 AM
I'm all in favor of separation of church and state, but that doesn't mean that "efforts by religious groups to push their agenda on the state are potentially suspect". It's only suspect if that agenda is to create a state church or a religious test for public office.
Posted by: Brandon at March 23, 2005 11:43 AM
No, a federal church.
I don't know why I should be any happier about a religious group taking stances in favor of preserving the environment over the economy or truly noxious ideas like 'distributive justice' than I would be about a secular group taking the same positions.
Posted by: bart at March 23, 2005 12:08 PMBecause the reasoning is sound.
Posted by: oj at March 23, 2005 12:11 PMThe document in question is here:
http://www.nae.net/images/civic_responsibility2.pdf
Some of the environmental stuff is a little dippy (who knew that Jesus wanted higher fuel efficiency standards?), but more uninformed than hard-left. But I must have missed the part where it took "liberal" stands on "distributive justice" and "racial equality." In lefty-speak, that means welfare on demand and kissing Jesse Jackson's rump constantly; that's distinctly not what this document is calling for.
The NAE and the National Council of Churches are still very far apart.
Posted by: Random Lawyer at March 23, 2005 12:13 PMState-mandated economic redistribution is wrong whether it is done by a commissar or a priest.
Posted by: bart at March 23, 2005 03:49 PMWhy?
Posted by: oj at March 23, 2005 04:07 PMLet 1000 absolute truths bloom!
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 23, 2005 05:36 PMThe simple answer is that it destroys incentive. Why should I get up in the morning and go to work if I get the same reward as if I cut off the soles of my shoes, climbed a tree and learned to play the flute? Replicate that calculation 300 million times each day and you'll see why redistributionist ideas are always wrong.
Posted by: bart at March 24, 2005 10:30 AMYet we redistribute money rather freely and it hasn't harmed our productivity in the least.
Posted by: oj at March 24, 2005 11:31 AMVery slightly compared with what these folks would do. Just look at Europe if you want to see the effects of redistribution gone mad.
And even the small redistributions we do here harm productivity and certainly have a negative impact on investment.
Posted by: bart at March 24, 2005 05:34 PMWe have a $2.3 billion dollar budget on an $11 trillion economy. That's more than a little redistribution of money.
Posted by: oj at March 24, 2005 05:59 PM