Influencing Public Policy

The New York Times’ “public editor” wrote in yesterdays edition about “The Archbishop’s Blog”. In this column, Clark Hoyt discussed Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s blogs criticizing the NYT for being “anti-catholic”. Hoyt pointed out that the catholic church was the spiritual home for one quarter of America’s population and was a major institution that ran schools, provided social services, and “seeks to shape public policy”. While the article defended the Times, my attention was drawn to the line “seeks to shape public policy”. Are there limits to shaping public policy?

First and foremost, churches enjoy a tax free status, and the obvious restriction of using tax free money to influence elections or elected officials seems obvious. If you are a catholic reading this and you are offended, think for a minute that the church is a mosque and it is advocating full Sharia Law with all American women being subject to the most restrictive clothing, and all gays and lesbians subject to death by stoning. Should these religious beliefs and behaviors benefit from tax free government support?

The first amendment provides the guarantee that our government can not establish a national religion, and at the same time, can not inhibit the free exercise of any religion. So, it seems clear that religions can advise their members on spiritual matters as they deem correct. For the Catholic Church, advising church members that abortion is morally wrong is permissible since these are tenets of their faith. The Church is telling its members that this is how they should lead their lives. Muslims might hear something similar about a woman’s obedience to her husband. In both cases, members of either religion (in the US) are free to leave these faiths if they do not, or can not accept these teachings. So far, all is fair.

The rub arises when a religion tries to influence public policy that affects other citizens who are not members of that particular faith. What is the ethical basis for this?

I would think the role of religion is to help a member to lead their own life, and not how to tell someone else to lead theirs. The practicality of this ought to be obvious since many religions have significantly opposing views. On top of that, we have a Constitution, and Federal, State, and local law makers who use a deliberate process to shape the laws of the land. All members of any religion have equal access to the secular Constitutionally guaranteed system.

Why should the organizational structure of a religion have a separate voice, as Catholic Bishops are doing now with their cruel interference with passage of health care reform, demanding language which discriminates against women.  Maybe the Catholic and Muslim religions are much more similar than one might think.

Explore posts in the same categories: Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party

Tags: archbishop timothy dolan, catholic church, first amendment, health care, health care reform, new york times

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.