Posted by
Jason Cunningham on Monday, June 25, 2007 6:37:49 PM
My last post covered the issue of "force vs. endorse," about how the government can’t force religion, but that it should be able to legally endorse religion, since it’s doing this all the time anyway, even when it doesn’t seem like it. What I’m basically getting at, when I speak of legally endorsing religion, is the idea of "religious capitalism" – the free market of faith, you might say.
This country has always had a capitalist economy – capitalism being based on the idea of a free market in which different things, operating under a standard set of rules, compete in an open market, and the best man wins, so to speak. Now, given the nature of democracy, as well as the previously-discussed problem of religious humans trying to operate a supposedly-nonreligious government, I believe that the only right solution is to legally open things up for a free market of religion, in which the government will still be barred from forcing or denying particular beliefs, but will have the legal freedom to promote and endorse (support) whatever set or sets of beliefs it feels is best – that is, whatever beliefs the majority of citizens agrees with.
Some people might be alarmed at this point because they think I’m talking about a theocracy, but that’s not what I’m speaking of; I stress emphatically that the state and church will remain two distinct entities, with neither one making decisions for the other. Other people might say that we already have a free market of religion, since everyone has the legal right to choose their beliefs. Yes, in that sense we do already have a free market of religion, but here’s the problem: When it comes to the government, what we currently have is a skewed free market of religion. If you’ll remember what I wrote about religion in "The Great Lie," you’ll recall my statement about how the supposedly "nonreligious" (even though they really are religious) have saturated the government, and how they beat down the "religious" crowd using the club of "false separation of church and state." What this amounts to is, in fact, having a type of free market of religion (the "religious" vs. the "nonreligious") but without it appearing so, and in which things have been twisted around so that the market only works for those who play the "nonreligious" card. You might call it a "disguised" free market, and basically the only ones who know about it are the "nonreligious" people, and they know quite well how to play the market. What’s more, they will continue to master the market until the citizenry stands up in protest, and for as long as the courts propagate the notion of "false separation" and the people believe it.
I recognize the dangers inherent in such a system; people whose beliefs are not endorsed by a given government may feel that they are getting pushed aside ... but that is no different than any other aspect of life in a democracy. People in this country routinely witness the passing of budgets or the approval of plans they disagree with – but if the decision-making process is conducted fair and square, and you just happen to be on the losing side of a legitimate vote ... well, that's the risk we all take every day with democracy, one of the prices of freedom. And this nation has already proved that a truly nonreligious government is impossible, primarily because there's no such thing as a nonreligious person, and that in the absence of a well-defined religion, therefore, you will not have a government devoid of religion but a government of disguised religion. I'd rather have it be clear where our political leaders stand on religious belief, and I take the reasonable risk of losing democratically, than be forced to swallow cloaked beliefs that get enacted into policy via back-door dealings.