Feldman Blog-posium, Take 1

Responding to Mark's invitation to contribute thoughts about Noah Feldman's important NYT essay, reader Matthew Festa writes:

. . .  I've read [Feldman's NYT article] through a couple of times and thought that you might want to get the perspective of a Catholic economist.  For the most part, I felt the article was well articulated and fair.  I agree with most of what was said.  This, however, I thought was somewhat unfair:

"On the other hand, charitable choice, which permits billions of dollars
in federal money to support faith-based organizations, should not be a
vehicle for allowing government to pay for programs that treat
alcoholics by counseling them to accept Christ.  Schools that teach that Shariah (or Jewish rabbinic law or canon law) is the ultimate source of values should not be supported by tuition vouchers."

If I remember my study of the founding period correctly (and I have some experience with this historical time period, both as an undergraduate and a publius fellow at www.claremont.org, which specializes in the founding ), I do not think this point holds up to much criticism.

Part of the solution the American founders articulated for the
"theological-political problem" was that each person would be allowed to worship as they wished so long as the religion was tempered by reason, and subscribed to the fundamental beliefs of the American Republic.  Parents had the right to school their children anyway they wished, be it Baptist, methodist, Quaker, Jew, etc, as long as that religion believed "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."

To the founders, this statement is self evident, or understandable to
anyone who grasps the terms of the proposition.  Thus, if a religion
denied this truth, it was not valid.  Proof of my statement lies with the early history of the American Catholic Church.  Many people in the 18th and 19th century did not believe the Catholic Church believed in these "self-evident" propositions and therefore discriminated against it (despite the fact that one of declaration's signers was Catholic!).  So
it is not that the founders accepted any and all religions.  Rather, they
recognized that many diverse religions (at the time diverse practices of Christianity and Judaism) answered man's highest questions while
respecting the self-evident truths of the political sphere.  Even though
many of the founders were deists, it did not matter that parents
educated their sons and daughters in the tenets of their faith because
their faith accepted the principles of the founding.  There was no
conflict.

When applying this principle to today, Feldman's argument against
vouchers falls apart.  Why is it the state's business to deny money to a
committed poor parent who wants to educate his/her son in Judaism or Catholicism?  As far as I can tell, both religions embrace the principles of the founding and would be more than glad at teaching it to the students to teach it to the students (aside: I attended an all boys Catholic school. As part of my graduation req I had to take 2 years of American history (jun and sen year).  My brother's public school required one....)  To me, this denial of public funds to parents is a denial of their religious liberty and their fundamental right to parent their children.

To answer the second charge against vouchers (that is would bias
structured religions all ready in place, i.e., the Catholic Church), let me answer by referencing Milton Friedman. (This argument is coming from Capitalism and Friedman VI).  Part of the reason you do not see a proliferation of private schools is that they cannot compete against public schools. If you allow a marketplace to exist where parents get to choose which school to send their child, you will see an increased amount of schools opening. This would, in my opinion, greatly help other denominations open schools (particularly Lutheran and Jewish), mitigating the advantage the Catholic Church has.  In addition, a meaningful voucher system would also bring about secular private schools, which would compete with religious schools.

Another reader, Jonathan Watson, writes:

In response to Professor Sargent's invitation concerning Noah Feldman's proposed solution, I have the following comments:

To begin with, Professor Feldman's discussion of the history behind the sovereignty of the people is correct . . ..  During the time period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Treaty of Westphalia, there were many different iterations of church-state relations, and I think that any attempt to lump them in under the idea that "the religion of the sovereign was he religion of the people" is an overstatement and tends to ignore the extraordinary works of the ius commune jurists in Romano-Canonical law on this very subject.

With that said (and seeking to avoid exclusion by concentration on collateral issues), I have a few more substantive criticisms of his paper. In general, Professor Feldman seems to ignore at least one taxation issue that confront religious believers. He proposes that the ideal treatment of church-state relations centers around "no coercion and no money." Yet this ignores an essential double-taxation issue. Assuming that most schools are funded by local, state, and federal taxes, the believers who desire to send their children to religious schools are then in a bind of subsidizing the public schools while also paying for parochial. Perhaps the counter-argument would be that the individual portion of any person's taxes which goes towards education is de minimus; yet, the principle must be addressed if Professor Feldman is truly seeking a more just solution.

I am also concerned by Professor Feldman's use of straw man. "Consider what will happen" he says, "when some delegate in a state legislature rises to argue that voucher payments should not be extended to schools that teach racism, or anti-Americanism, or sexism." He then burns this particular straw man by describing how his solution would avoid such institutional divisiveness. There seems to be an inherent contradiction here. In the start of his paper, he argues that secular and non-secular political members should not be afraid that their respective positions are conversation stoppers, but should engage one another on their own turf. He proceeds with the aforementioned argument to nullify one of the very controversial items in society, one which ought above all to be discussed. Perhaps he perceives that he is one such individual, and this argument is just the opening salvo to one of the very divisive topics of debate.

Following this observation, in looking through Professor Feldman's paper, I find that in the end it is both a description of his ideal church-state relationship, and an argument within that ideal. He does not separate the terms of engagement (offering greater latitude for religious debate) from arguments that would arise through those terms (governmental funding of religious schools). He views the exchange of greater religious debate as a quid pro quo for "values-evangelicals" giving up desire for state-support of religion. It appears reasonable, but the contrary is devastating. If I, as a "value-evangelical" refuse to give up my desire for state-supported religious institutions, am I then condemned to a refusal to discuss these matters by legal secularists, or worse if legal secularists have the capability, outright suppression of those ideas?

Our readers' views' are, of course, our readers' views.  More are welcome.

Rick