When the subject of the Separation of Church and State is mentioned while talking about Rick Perry, everyone automatically thinks about the controversial Prayer Rally that Rick Perry put on in Texas. Civil liberty groups among others have heavily criticized the event called “The Response”. Furthermore, many believe that the event violated the First Amendment’s Separation of Church and State. This is obviously a hot debate subject during these presidential campaigns. In his New York Times article entitled, “How to Respond to Rick Perry and ‘The Response’”, Paul Horwitz expresses his quite unique view on the subject. Horwitz does not believe in the way in which Perry’s critics are going about expressing their disagreement with Perry. Horwitz says, “The problem is not only that such legal maneuvers routinely fail; it’s also that they do a disservice to religious freedom and diminish meaningful public debate. There are better ways to express disagreement with religious statements made by elected officials than to sue the courts to try to pre-empt them.” (Horwitz). This is a valid point made by Paul Horwitz. Whether or not you agree with Perry, using the court to deal with the issue probably is not the best way to deal with the issue seeing that you are not exactly encouraging religious freedom. Horwitz goes on, “Religion plays too important a part in many people’s lives to be denied a role in the public square. To be sure, there are some things the state can’t do, like demand that schoolchildren pray each day. But elected officials, like other citizens, are free to have and express religious views.” (Horwitz). This a good point, but I can’t definitively say if I agree or disagree with it. Religion does play a big part in the lives of many individuals and I strongly believe in the freedom of religion. However, being the president of such a large and diverse nation is a job that requires one to represent a vast group of peoples. Without separating church and state, it would be tough to do so. Additionally, there is no question that people with stronger religious beliefs have a more difficult time doing just that. Whether or not Rick Perry is abiding by the first Amendment’s separation of Church and State or, he is definitely pushing the envelope through his political tactics thus far. Because of his strict views, I would have to call him a separatist. There simply have not been many signs just yet of Perry’s willingness to be an accomodationist.
I think that Horowitz makes a really good point about politicians, as citizens, having the right to express their religious views. They certainly can practice any religion that they choose and should be able to do so publicly. A problem arises when their religious views change their political actions, for example restricting peoples liberties in the name of God. Another issue would be if they deferred to the powers of their religion over the responsibilities of their office. For example, if President Obama was taking orders from his pastor with regard to his policies, that would be an issue. Obama was elected president and he should not be deferring to anyone else. Another example is Michele Bachmann. She has said wives should always be submissive to their husbands. If she were elected president, would she or her husband be in charge?
ReplyDelete