Monday, February 7, 2011
Laura Ingraham and John Locke on Religion in the Public Sphere
In his Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke states that church and state should be separate but the church's sphere of influence should be limited, extending only to the other worldy salvation of its members souls. He writes: "The end of a religious society ... is the public worship of God and, by means thereof, the acquisition of eternal life. ... Nothing ought nor can be transacted in this society relating to the possession of civil and worldly goods." This morning, while in the car, I caught a couple of minutes of Laura Ingraham's radio program. If I heard her correctly, she took a very Lockean position, criticizing the Catholic bishops and some evangelical pastors for getting involved in the immigration debate suggesting that they ought to stick to "religious" matters. I've criticized those on the left who take the separationist line when it is convenient to their cause but welcome the church's input when beneficial to their cause and so I apply my criticism equally across the political spectrum since I highly doubt the Ingraham is a consistent secularist.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/02/laura-ingraham-and-john-locke-on-religion-in-the-public-sphere.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Perhaps she meant that they ought to stick to matters in which they have special competence? Which might preclude certain kinds of activism in areas fraught with prudential application and reasonable disagreement, like immigration or economics? Robert George has made similar arguments about the bishops at various points in time. See, e.g., Robert P. George & William L. Saunders, Jr., Prophets and Kings: When Must the Church Speak Out Against Injustice?, 2 J. L. Phil. & Culture 211 (2008). I'm pretty sure Ingraham took that basic approach a few years back when various bishops were getting involved in state minimum wage fights (i.e. "reasonable Catholics can disagree on how best to help the poor, but not on state cloning laws: focus your energy there where your authority is clearest"), but maybe her stance has hardened in the years since.
Regardless, it's certainly true that there is no shortage of instant secularists on the right as soon as immigration comes up. I'd just be (somewhat) surprised if it turned out Ingraham was really one of them.