为什么政治上对宗教基础道德的依赖并不违反政教分离条款

M. Perry
{"title":"为什么政治上对宗教基础道德的依赖并不违反政教分离条款","authors":"M. Perry","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.262676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I say, sir, that the purity of the Christian church, the purity of our holy religion, and the preservation of our free institutions, require that Church and State shall be separated; that the preacher on the Sabbath day shall find his text in the Bible; shall preach \"Jesus Christ and him crucified;\" shall preach from the Holy Scriptures, and not attempt to control the political organizations and political parties of the day. --Senator Stephen A. Douglas(1) Imagine a legislator who must decide whether to vote to outlaw, or otherwise disfavor, particular conduct--abortion, for example, or same-sex unions. She wonders what weight, if any, she should put on her religiously grounded belief that the conduct is immoral; in particular, she worries that it might not be appropriate for her to disfavor the conduct on the basis of her religiously grounded moral belief.(2) In another essay in the series of which this Essay is a part,(3) I argue that the morality of liberal democracy does not counsel her against disfavoring the conduct on the basis of religiously grounded moral belief.(4) In this Essay, I pursue a different but, for us citizens of the United States, complementary inquiry: Does the United States's constitutional morality of religious freedom--in particular, the requirement that government not \"establish\" religion--forbid government to disfavor conduct on the basis of a religiously grounded belief that the conduct is immoral? That the morality of liberal democracy does not counsel a legislator or other policymaker against disfavoring conduct on the basis of religiously grounded moral belief does not entail that the nonestablishment norm (as I prefer to call it) permits government to disfavor conduct on the basis of religiously grounded moral belief. As I have explained elsewhere, the nonestablishment norm that is part of American constitutional law is, in some respects, more restrictive than the morality of liberal democracy; in some respects, the limitations placed on government by the nonestablishment norm are greater than, they go beyond, the limitations placed on government by the morality of liberal democracy.(5) The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States famously insists that \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\" Yet, according to the authoritative case law--law that is constitutional bedrock in the United States(6)--it is not just \"Congress\" but all three branches of the national government that may not prohibit the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, etc. Moreover, it is not just the (whole) national government but the government of every state that may not do what the First Amendment forbids. I have suggested elsewhere that there is a path from the text of the First Amendment, which speaks just of Congress, to the authoritative case law.(7) But even if there were no such path, it would nonetheless be constitutional bedrock in the United States that neither the national government nor state government may either prohibit the free exercise of religion or establish religion (or abridge \"the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances\").(8) For Americans at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the serious practical question is no longer whether the \"free exercise\" and \"nonestablishment\" norms apply to the whole of American government, including state government. They do so apply. And there is no going back. The sovereignty of the free exercise and nonestablishment norms over every branch and level of American government--in particular, their sovereignty over state government as well as the national government--is now, as I said, constitutional bedrock in the United States. …","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":"42 1","pages":"663"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Political Reliance on Religiously Grounded Morality Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause\",\"authors\":\"M. Perry\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.262676\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I say, sir, that the purity of the Christian church, the purity of our holy religion, and the preservation of our free institutions, require that Church and State shall be separated; that the preacher on the Sabbath day shall find his text in the Bible; shall preach \\\"Jesus Christ and him crucified;\\\" shall preach from the Holy Scriptures, and not attempt to control the political organizations and political parties of the day. --Senator Stephen A. Douglas(1) Imagine a legislator who must decide whether to vote to outlaw, or otherwise disfavor, particular conduct--abortion, for example, or same-sex unions. She wonders what weight, if any, she should put on her religiously grounded belief that the conduct is immoral; in particular, she worries that it might not be appropriate for her to disfavor the conduct on the basis of her religiously grounded moral belief.(2) In another essay in the series of which this Essay is a part,(3) I argue that the morality of liberal democracy does not counsel her against disfavoring the conduct on the basis of religiously grounded moral belief.(4) In this Essay, I pursue a different but, for us citizens of the United States, complementary inquiry: Does the United States's constitutional morality of religious freedom--in particular, the requirement that government not \\\"establish\\\" religion--forbid government to disfavor conduct on the basis of a religiously grounded belief that the conduct is immoral? That the morality of liberal democracy does not counsel a legislator or other policymaker against disfavoring conduct on the basis of religiously grounded moral belief does not entail that the nonestablishment norm (as I prefer to call it) permits government to disfavor conduct on the basis of religiously grounded moral belief. As I have explained elsewhere, the nonestablishment norm that is part of American constitutional law is, in some respects, more restrictive than the morality of liberal democracy; in some respects, the limitations placed on government by the nonestablishment norm are greater than, they go beyond, the limitations placed on government by the morality of liberal democracy.(5) The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States famously insists that \\\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\\\" Yet, according to the authoritative case law--law that is constitutional bedrock in the United States(6)--it is not just \\\"Congress\\\" but all three branches of the national government that may not prohibit the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, etc. Moreover, it is not just the (whole) national government but the government of every state that may not do what the First Amendment forbids. I have suggested elsewhere that there is a path from the text of the First Amendment, which speaks just of Congress, to the authoritative case law.(7) But even if there were no such path, it would nonetheless be constitutional bedrock in the United States that neither the national government nor state government may either prohibit the free exercise of religion or establish religion (or abridge \\\"the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances\\\").(8) For Americans at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the serious practical question is no longer whether the \\\"free exercise\\\" and \\\"nonestablishment\\\" norms apply to the whole of American government, including state government. They do so apply. And there is no going back. The sovereignty of the free exercise and nonestablishment norms over every branch and level of American government--in particular, their sovereignty over state government as well as the national government--is now, as I said, constitutional bedrock in the United States. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":75324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"663\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"William and Mary law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.262676\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.262676","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

先生,我说,为了基督教会的纯洁,为了我们神圣宗教的纯洁,为了维护我们的自由制度,我们必须政教分离;讲道的人在安息日要在圣经中找他的经文;宣讲“耶稣基督和他钉十字架”;宣讲圣经,不试图控制当时的政治组织和政党。想象一下,一位立法者必须决定是否投票禁止或反对某些行为,例如堕胎或同性婚姻。她想知道,如果她认为这种行为是不道德的,那么她应该给予多大的重视。(2)在本系列的另一篇文章(本文是该系列文章的一部分)中,(3)我认为,自由民主的道德并没有劝告她反对基于宗教基础的道德信仰而反对这种行为。(4)在这篇文章中,我追求一种不同的、但对我们美国公民来说是互补的探究:美国宪法对宗教自由的道德要求——特别是政府不得“确立”宗教的要求——是否禁止政府以宗教信仰为基础,不赞成不道德的行为?自由民主的道德不建议立法者或其他政策制定者反对基于宗教基础的道德信仰的不利行为,但这并不意味着非建制规范(我更喜欢这样称呼它)允许政府不赞成基于宗教基础的道德信仰的行为。正如我在其他地方所解释的那样,作为美国宪法一部分的非建制规范在某些方面比自由民主的道德更具限制性;在某些方面,非国教规范对政府施加的限制比自由民主道德对政府施加的限制更大,甚至更大。(5)美国宪法第一修正案著名地坚持“国会不得制定有关国教或禁止信教自由的法律;或剥夺言论或出版自由;以及人民和平集会和向政府请愿讨回冤屈的权利。”然而,根据作为美国宪法基石的权威判例法(6),不仅是“国会”,国家政府的所有三个部门都不得禁止宗教自由、限制言论自由等。此外,不仅是(整个)国家政府,而且每个州的政府都不能做第一修正案所禁止的事情。(7)但是,即使没有这样的道路,它仍将是美国宪法的基石,即无论是国家政府还是州政府都不得禁止宗教自由或建立宗教(或限制言论自由或新闻自由);(8)对于21世纪初的美国人来说,严肃的实际问题已不再是"集会自由"和"非建制"准则是否适用于包括州政府在内的整个美国政府。它们确实适用。没有回头路可走。自由行使和非建制规范的主权凌驾于美国政府的每一个部门和层面——特别是他们对州政府和国家政府的主权——正如我所说,现在是美国的宪法基石。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why Political Reliance on Religiously Grounded Morality Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause
I say, sir, that the purity of the Christian church, the purity of our holy religion, and the preservation of our free institutions, require that Church and State shall be separated; that the preacher on the Sabbath day shall find his text in the Bible; shall preach "Jesus Christ and him crucified;" shall preach from the Holy Scriptures, and not attempt to control the political organizations and political parties of the day. --Senator Stephen A. Douglas(1) Imagine a legislator who must decide whether to vote to outlaw, or otherwise disfavor, particular conduct--abortion, for example, or same-sex unions. She wonders what weight, if any, she should put on her religiously grounded belief that the conduct is immoral; in particular, she worries that it might not be appropriate for her to disfavor the conduct on the basis of her religiously grounded moral belief.(2) In another essay in the series of which this Essay is a part,(3) I argue that the morality of liberal democracy does not counsel her against disfavoring the conduct on the basis of religiously grounded moral belief.(4) In this Essay, I pursue a different but, for us citizens of the United States, complementary inquiry: Does the United States's constitutional morality of religious freedom--in particular, the requirement that government not "establish" religion--forbid government to disfavor conduct on the basis of a religiously grounded belief that the conduct is immoral? That the morality of liberal democracy does not counsel a legislator or other policymaker against disfavoring conduct on the basis of religiously grounded moral belief does not entail that the nonestablishment norm (as I prefer to call it) permits government to disfavor conduct on the basis of religiously grounded moral belief. As I have explained elsewhere, the nonestablishment norm that is part of American constitutional law is, in some respects, more restrictive than the morality of liberal democracy; in some respects, the limitations placed on government by the nonestablishment norm are greater than, they go beyond, the limitations placed on government by the morality of liberal democracy.(5) The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States famously insists that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Yet, according to the authoritative case law--law that is constitutional bedrock in the United States(6)--it is not just "Congress" but all three branches of the national government that may not prohibit the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, etc. Moreover, it is not just the (whole) national government but the government of every state that may not do what the First Amendment forbids. I have suggested elsewhere that there is a path from the text of the First Amendment, which speaks just of Congress, to the authoritative case law.(7) But even if there were no such path, it would nonetheless be constitutional bedrock in the United States that neither the national government nor state government may either prohibit the free exercise of religion or establish religion (or abridge "the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances").(8) For Americans at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the serious practical question is no longer whether the "free exercise" and "nonestablishment" norms apply to the whole of American government, including state government. They do so apply. And there is no going back. The sovereignty of the free exercise and nonestablishment norms over every branch and level of American government--in particular, their sovereignty over state government as well as the national government--is now, as I said, constitutional bedrock in the United States. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信