Responding to the Response to The Response

I referenced Gov. Perry's revival meeting ("The Response") briefly yesterday. Perry, who is being talked as a possible presidential candidate, is really upping his conservative religious cred. The event is not overly inclusive given the statement of faith involved: "including the infallibility of the Bible, the centrality of Jesus Christ, and the eternal damnation that awaits nonbelievers." Some also think Perry's involvement crosses the constitutional line:

The lawsuit challenged Perry's numerous acts of sponsorship of the “The Response” and endorsement of the American Family Association, including the governor’s use of the state seal of Texas on promotional materials and invitation letters, the governor’s proclamation, his video invitation and robo-calls urging people to attend.*

Paul Horwitz has a NYT op-ed on how to "respond," but it has some of the tiresome aspects that some "here's a reasonable approach on religion" tend to have. In a preview, he said: "absolutely forbidden actions aside, I think we diminish ourselves when we try to short-circuit the culture wars by invoking constitutional prohibitions." I don't know what is "absolutely" forbidden as compared to something like "clearly" forbidden or whatever. I do know the statement is thin gruel. "Culture wars" cannot be stopped that way. That's patently obvious. It is a means to address and deal with the problem, one among many. Besides, things like hateful beliefs are clearly protected, so culture wars will continue.

The op-ed also has this tiresome canard:

Moreover, by trying to banish religion from the public sphere, Mr. Perry’s critics end up cutting themselves out of the debate.

This is b.s. The critics of Gov. Perry come in all types and (even if it's possible, which it is not) few want to "banish religion" in this fashion. President Obama, e.g., uses religion in his public statements repeatedly. I have been upset at the nature of some of them, though overall they are respectfully inclusive, but never wanted to "banish" them. This is a canard that is repeatedly tossed out there when someone doesn't want the government to put its imprimatur on specific religious doctrine. This is quite different from people, in public, expressing religious faith. A few strident types aside, few wish that. Since religion, especially if defined broadly, is such a basic part of culture, I don't even think it's possible to banish it, even if we tried real hard.

I also don't see TPM and other sources only making this an "Establishment Clause" issue. In fact, often it takes a bit of interpretation to see that the clause is relevant. When we are concerned that some politician or government wishes to use selective religious doctrine (or "values") to diminish people or limit their freedom, we often do not think of it as a First Amendment issue. But, I think -- such as in the abortion context -- it often is one. There is some evidence of focusing too much on constitutional issues at times, but the failure of lawsuits against events like "The Response" underlines that not so much in this context.

The op-ed is correct enough that we should be able to talk about religion, including some problematic uses of it by public officials, without letting the First Amendment being the only test. If something stands up in court, it doesn't suddenly make it a good thing. Court action provide the upper limits; things below that can very well be far from ideal. The op-ed doesn't quite express the idea that well though. Also, this has some merit:

Politicians who invoke their faith to lure religious voters benefit from this paralysis. Consider Mitt Romney. When questioned by voters during the last presidential campaign about his Mormon faith, Mr. Romney commendably refused to disavow it. But he also refused to discuss it in any detail, claiming that would impose a religious test on his candidacy.

Damon Linker's book, The Religious Test touched upon this issue somewhat. It notes that some religious faiths, even if the Constitution allows their adherents to serve in government, have certain values that clash with democratic values. It is not wrong or in bad taste to talk about this. Also, a person's faith is unlikely to have no influence on their public life and ways of governing. How exactly is another matter -- there are quite a lot of different ways and stereotyping should be avoided when possible. And, specific areas of faith can be private. Still, it does not seem wrong to expect a candidate to discuss the point without violating Art. VI of the Constitution.

I'm not totally comfortable with the path taken where ceremonial deism that in practice favors certain religions over others is accepted in official governmental life. It is only likely result in this day and age, all the same, and respects a broad range of religious beliefs in the process. Many wish to go further (a few in the other direction, but how much weight do they have next to the base of a major political party?) and some call them on it. These people as a whole do not want to "banish" religion from public life and strawman feeds the other side. It isn't helpful. Try to find your "I'm so reasonable!" solution without that, please.

---

* The op-ed discussed here says this about the lawsuit:

The problem is not only that such legal maneuvers routinely fail; it’s also that they do a disservice to religious freedom and diminish meaningful public debate. There are better ways to express disagreement with religious statements made by elected officials than to use the courts to try to pre-empt them.

Use of state seals does not seem to be merely "religious statements made by elected officials." "[T]he author of 'The Agnostic Age: Law, Religion and the Constitution'" should know better. It is also not if even these people only use litigation to challenge this sort of thing. Canards and misstatements "diminish meaningful public debate" too.