There they go again. Both the New York Times and the liberal wing of the Supreme Court (assuming for the sake of argument that these are different entities) are once again waxing eloquent about the virtue of neutral equal treatment, by which they generally mean only that religion should be heard (but only inside confined, dedicated quarters) but not seen.
A NYT editorial celebrating the removal of the Ten Commandments from Kentucky courtrooms noted:
… as our country becomes more religiously diverse, putting one faith in a privileged position is likely to create more religious strife, not less.
Perhaps the gray eminences at the Gray Lady could explain why they believe that preference given to religion produces strife but that preferences given on the basis of race or ethnicity do not. Or perhaps why they believe that religious strife is bad and should be avoided while racial strife isn’t bad and should be encouraged.
In a similar vein, Justice Breyer wrote in his concurring opinion in that case (McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union):
We are centuries away from the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre and the treatment of heretics in early Massachusetts, but the divisiveness of religion in current public life is inescapable. This is no time to deny the prudence of understanding the Establishment Clause to require the Government to stay neutral on religious belief, which is reserved for the conscience of the individual.
This is not the first time Justice Breyer has praised in one context a neutrality that he scorns in others. After quoting him extensively extolling the virtues of religious neutrality, I commented (here):
Perhaps Justice Breyer and his like-minded brethren, on and off the Court, can be called on to explain why they fear “the risk” of “potential” divisiveness in what they see as religious preferences but not the actual divisiveness of racial and ethnic preferences. Or, in the alternative, they could explain why a principle that they believe justifies racial preferences does not also justify religious preference, for certainly they recognize that religion provides as good or better basis for “diversity” as race. Would they look on religious preferences in admissions and hiring with the same favor they bestow on racial and ethnic preferences? What is it precisely that would make a preference for Arabs acceptable but for Muslims unacceptable? Why was the old quota system that restricted the number of Jews in the Ivy League (presumably) wrong, but the de facto quota system that restricted the number of Asians admitted to Berkeley and UCLA under reign of preferences not wrong?
I’m still waiting for that explanation.
“… as our country becomes more religiously diverse, putting one faith in a privileged position is likely to create more religious strife, not less.”
And, you ask, why is this? How could this country or any other country for that matter push preferential religious views on millions of people based on religious ideations or dogma which may not pertain to everyone? Like the quote states, putting one religion in a privileged position will create more religious strife when forced upon others. Religion has been the root for many hisorical injustices (one worth mentioning here- slavery as it was historically backed by the Catholic church). Does this mean that this was the right thing to do just because it was backed by religion? No. Now that does not go to say that personal religious beliefs and spirituality is wrong, in fact, it is quite a beautiful thing.. but it should be within our families and communities and not stepping over the line into our governing body. This is when trouble happens (and HAS happened).
I notice you comment on racial and ethnic preferences and why is this preference is in place when religious preferences are banned? I suppose you’re referring to affirmative action in a ’round-about way.. Have you ever lived in an inner-city or in poverty? Would you agree that you would not have the same opportunities that you, John, have had your entire life? Do you live in a country where your ancestors have been enslaved for over 400 years, uneducated, unable to read, beaten to death.. and you wonder why inequality and unequal opportunity exists today? Do you recall any of the equal rights movements that occurred less than 50 years ago for both women and minorities?
Look at the history of religious and racial/ethnic preferences and see how people have been discriminated by both. (i.e. slavery, racism, inequality).. These injustices have existed and this is a fact. This is why there needs to be separation of church and state and.. hey, these hotly debated affirmative action initiatives may not be so bad after all.
Don’t you feel that your 400- year jump start on education and your way of life has been a wonderful thing? Time to let others catch up.
Don’t you feel that your 400- year jump start on education
John, I know that you have been a long time graduate student but I didn’t realize it was for that long a time! By the way, you don’t look a day over 390.
Richard, the more significant line in Erika’s response is:
Have you ever lived in an inner-city or in poverty?
I don’t know if John has lived in either, but Erika’s statement suggests government policy based upon socio-economic conditions, not race. For example, programs like financial aid, outreach to inner city and rural schools, and improving K-12 education. In fact, just based upon her words, one could envision a race-neutral program that gave preference (I don’t envision an unabashed “admissions preference” however, which I think are counterproductive to whomever receives it, I envision targeting school districts and maybe geographic regions for educational improvement, much like the old empowermnent/enterprise zones idea) to students in underperforming school districts or whose parents are below a certain income level.
Erika, there are people of all races that have experienced those conditions -why should we limit our solutions?
John, to answer your post’s question. There is a difference between religion and race. One can choose one’s religion – one can’t choose one’s race. I could actually see a (slightly more) rational basis for discriminating based upon religion – at least for the private person in their personal interactions (although I still think it unwise). Nonetheless, governmental religious neutrality is a wise-policy, just as it would be wise to have race and gender neutrality (and actually, neutrality is a better word than equality, for a myriad of reasons).
Chetly – In terms of the role they play in our society, I’m actually not convinced there is a relevant difference between race and religion. Primarily, playing favorites in either arena produces intense divisiveness, which for some reason Breyer et. al. think it essential to avoid re religion but not re race.
I also think too much can be made of choice here. Anti-semites, for example, will regard a Jew as a Jew even if the Jew identifies himself as a Jehovah’s Witness. Even the “passing” possibility is a gray area, not black and white. Think of Hispanics. Think of the offspring of one black and one white parent. Etc.Etc. But in addition, it would seem to me that insofar as one can choose, to that degree preferences would be less legitimate. Why give a preference to someone who is in a group he can choose to join? But maybe that’s your point.
It has always seemed to me that, in theory, religious preferences make more sense from a diversity-promotion standpoint than racial preferences do. If you want students exposed to a lot of differing viewpoints, why not start by collecting a lot of students with identifiably different viewpoints about the nature of the universe?
In practice, of course, it’s hopeless, for a dozen reasons. It’d generate huge amounts of animosity; it’d be subject to massive fraud (how do you prove that someone actually believes what he professes to?); &c. But one reason I like the “10% plans,” and other states’ preferences for students from underrepresented (usually rural) parts of the state, is that they are likely to bring more religious diversity as well as diversity of perspective in other ways.