No means offered for evaluating government action
To the editor:
I wish the guest commentator of “Whatever happened to separation of church and state?” (Oct. 27, 2021) had explicitly stated his standard or rule of thumb to determine when a law, policy or program “violates the principle of government neutrality towards religion.” I can only infer from his op-ed that:
n School vouchers to educate a student at a church-run school is constitutionally prohibited, even if the voucher only pays for non-religious education. What about government insurance payments and program grants to church-run hospitals, healthcare centers and homeless shelters? In what situations are “tax dollars for sectarian purposes” barred and when are they allowed?
n Religious beliefs cannot be the sole reason for supporting government action, but must have basis in rationale or individual rights. “Life begins at conception” and “is a gift from the Almighty” are unacceptable reasons for opposing abortion and physician assisted-suicide because they are unprovable. However, the “larger religious community” that does not hold these views are not required to prove life does not begin at conception or is not a gift from the Almighty. As an aside, the argument that some religious groups support certain laws and others do not is irrelevant to a discussion on religious freedoms.
n Religious belief cannot be justification for government action. But asymmetrically, religious belief cannot be the sole reason for protecting free exercise of religion. A church cannot discriminate against LBGT persons solely based on the belief about “sinful” behavior.
The guest commentator states that “religious freedom is threatened” but offers no objective means of evaluating whether a government action supports or diminishes the separation of church and state. Why is his opinion any “better” or more righteous than people whom he believes hold a “narrow set of religiously conservative views?”
Peter K. Butler
Sanibel