Comments on 2 issues here...

Submitted by David Isecke (United States), Dec 19, 2002 at 11:40

There are two issues that I have seen here in the comments section that I thought needed a bit more discussion. The first is Victor's point (Isn't This Free Speech?)

I would argue that the concept of free speech as we know and cherish it applies to private individuals and institutions. So long as the speech is not libellous or dangerous (such as incitements to violence or the traditional calling 'fire' in a crowded theatre), the idea is that it should be permitted as a matter of law. After all, who are we to render illegal the expression of someone's opinion?

However, when public moneys come into the picture, freedom cannot exist as the same sort of concept. There are at least two reasons for this. Simplest of them is that public monies are derived from taxes, which are inherently coercive. This is not to say that taxation is not necessary in society, but that the money is not given freely. Non-payment can well mean that IRS agents kick down your door and drag you into prison.

Secondly, 'freedom' in legal case where public money applies, means freedom from public oversight. This is a ridiculous proposition: that the public should be forced to subsidize a message they may not approve of. Publically funded messages have a particular weight behind them, and what may be perfectly permissible (if noxious) for people to say as individuals (ie - "I believe all black people are potential criminals") would be utterly inappropriate for any forum sponsored by tax money.

In short, you have to be careful where and how you apply the mantra of free speech. It is a very good concept that has been greatly misunderstood by the public, and this has allowed charlatans to try to apply this great concept to their publically funded posturings and their deceptions. Free speech does not apply to all speech, and it weakens the argument for free speech to pretend that it does.

The second point regards the idea that State and Church cannot be seperated, as pointed out by Richard Eason. There are several points here which I find contentious. One is that all law is 'enacted morality'. This may be a semantic point, but I must draw the line here between a code of morality and one of ethics. Morality is one's private ideas (perhaps informed by religion) as to what is the 'right' thing to do, and what additudes and actions render a person 'righteous'. Ethics is the concept of a person not being permitted to unfairly and unilaterally harm another, or deprive them of their rights, as well as making sure that a person acts in a socially constructive manner. For example, the concept that it is bad to randomly hunt down and kill strangers who live in my town is an ethical concept (though it may also be a moral one). My decision to not masturbate because it is a sin is entirely moral in consideration, unless I do so publically, in which case it takes on an ethical element.

I would argue that it is the duty of a government to set up laws that are ethical, but to leave personal morals to the people involved. Is this religious? That brings up my second point. Rules of law may be based on things other than religion. What I have just espoused has no metaphysical componant; it is, instead, a philosophy. In general, I observe that philosophy of law has had more overall impact than any particular relgion, especially in this country.

Furthermore, it is mistaken to assume that British law was based on Christian teachings alone - or even primarily. It is well known that Greek and Roman law had a huge impact on British law, for one thing, and that legal philosophies that were not at all (or only barely) informed by Christianity as a grounding concept were being developed by the British. A cursory look at British law easily reveals that the vast majority of the body of this law revolved around ethical considerations -- making a functioning society, setting up forms of taxation, etc., rather than moral ones. Most of the moral ones were also ethical. The obvious moral laws (injunctions against murder and theft, for example) are practially universal across all systems of law and tradition, Christian or not.

This is not to say that there were not individual laws - even important ones - that were informed by Christian theology. However, its certainly not clear that this was the basic model. And in cases where theology proved impractical (such as anti-usury laws), the needs of society always won in the end.


Finally, as to the issue at hand, it seems clear to me that it is not appropriate for public funding to be used to proselytise for a particular religion, which contains more than a system of morality, but a history, a metaphysics, and prophetic characters. This is not to disparage Islam particularly -- I would not want to see funds used to proselytise Judaism or Christianity either, and I am a Jew.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".