Unfettered Capitalism and the United States’ Marketplace of Religion
Our
pilgrim forebears came to America in 1620 for freedom of religion. They sought
the ability to worship and believe according to their conscience. They were
Separatists who fled the England of King James I, who had restricted religious
freedom for those who did not follow his religious ideals, whether Separatists,
Puritans or Catholics.
At
first, the Pilgrims and others of similar Calvinist leanings emphasized their
own ability to worship as they saw fit and did not accord others the same
right. But Roger Williams’ focus on each individual’s right to their own “Soul
Liberty” took a different view. His perspective was that the problem was not
that the government (e.g., King James) favored the wrong theological view, but
that government favored any theological view at all.
In
the end, Williams’ idea became the foundation of the United States’ approach to
the relationship between government and religious organizations. The main point
is that there should not be a relationship; according to the First Amendment,
government should pass no laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The
former phrase means that laws cannot give some religious group more rights than
other groups, while the latter phrase indicates that laws cannot give some
religious groups or individuals fewer rights than other religious groups. To
the extent possible, government should pass no laws concerning religions.
While
this principle has not been followed 100 percent, the United States probably has
fewer laws about religion and less government involvement in regulating
religious organizations than any other country.
This
hands-off government approach has placed America’s religions in a free-for-all
marketplace. Varieties of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism and
many other religions jostle each other to find a niche or establish their place
in the religious scene.
This
religious marketplace is quite capitalist in character. Some religious
organizations compete at the top of the marketplace. Like a company seeking
higher sales, they work to attract more members. Like advertisers, they loudly
broadcast their views for all to see. Whether they are a large organization,
like the Catholic Church, or a small group, like the followers of the anti-gay
Fred Phelps, they compete for media attention to get their word out.
Other
religious organizations participate in the market by finding a quiet niche.
They do not want a big public presence, but simply wish to practice their faith
and be left alone. And, of course, there are many approaches in between.
Competition
in this religious marketplace occurs in many forms, from blatant advertising on
the sides of buses to announcing meeting times on the Saturday newspaper
“church page.” There are parades, social outreach through missions and soup
kitchens, sponsorship of Boy Scouts and, especially, the erection of prominent
buildings. Churches and their steeples have dominated the skylines and central
squares of towns and villages for centuries.
The
capitalistic nature of this competition does not prevent different religious
groups from using non-capitalistic means to gain an edge. Recently, the quest
has been to allow religious groups or individuals to deprive others of their
rights. In particular, the present social debate over freedom of religion is
the claim that one person’s right to believe as they wish includes the right to
deprive others of their rights.
This
is the claim of the Hobby Lobby case presently before the Supreme Court and the
goal of laws recently passed in Arizona (where it was vetoed) and in
Mississippi that allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of belief.
The
capitalist character of America’s religious marketplace, then, is so free and
open that nothing prevents religious groups from using non-capitalist means to
try to make it less free and less equal for some. Success in this quest will
eventually make religious belief and practice less free for everyone.
Labels: Arizona, Boy Scouts, Catholic, Church, first amendment, Hobby Lobby, King James 1, Mississippi, Pilgrim, Puritan, Roger Williams, Separatist
2 Comments:
"This is the claim of the Hobby Lobby case presently before the Supreme Court and the goal of laws recently passed in Arizona (where it was vetoed) and in Mississippi that allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of belief."
Based on your comment and logic, one can assume that it is perfectly acceptable for governments and secularists to discriminate, based on their beliefs, against organizations or individuals holding religious beliefs. Regardless, you need to unbundle the Hobby Lobby case from the Arizona and Mississippi laws. They are significantly different.
As an aside, Hobby Lobby's existing insurance provides for contraceptives for their employees. Abortifacients are not provided under their employee insurance, which are being forced on them by the ACA and to which Hobby Lobby objects.
Again, you appear to believe that government and secular discrimination against religious based beliefs is just fine. Gee, maybe someone should try to actually understand the First Amendment rather than just quote it.
Do you actually believe that the framers of the Constitution intended for individuals to only practice and express their religious beliefs within the confines of their places of worship?
By Anonymous, at 4/09/2014
Actually, I argued they were the same only in that they attempt to short circuit the "capitalist" character of our country's religion free market by non-capitalist means (i.e., by recourse to law). They are not the same kind of case otherwise, as you so well make the point.
By Paul Flesher, at 4/09/2014
Post a Comment
<< Home