Andrew Fiala
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The drama regarding the Episcopalian Church in Fresno shows us the complexity of the ideal of religious liberty. Americans are right to celebrate the separation of church and state. But we must acknowledge that religious liberty means that religions are free to espouse views that many of us believe are intolerant. This works so long as church and state remain separate.
Last month, a substantial majority of Episcopalians here in Fresno voted to leave the American Episcopal Church and align with the Church of the Southern Cone. The immediate cause of this fissure was the Episcopal Church's changing view of homosexuality and marriage. According to the more conservative reading of the Bible propounded by the Fresno Episcopalians, the church should not approve homosexual relationships or ordain homosexual clergy.
The Episcopal Church responded last week by "inhibiting" John-David Schofield, the bishop of San Joaquin. This means that he is prohibited him from carrying out his ministerial duties. In reply, Schofield claims that because he is no longer a member of the Episcopal Church, the order of inhibition does not apply to him.
The use of the term "inhibition" is intriguing. The term evokes repression and restriction. Ironically, in this case, the more "liberal" Episcopal Church wants to inhibit Schofield's freedom to preach. And Schofield and his congregation claim that they should be "uninhibited," that is, free to create a religious community that does not sanction homosexual unions.
The principle of religious freedom is central here. Schofield has said that the vote to leave the Episcopal Church was a vote to affirm the "freedom to honor the authority of Scripture." In his pastoral letter announcing the split, he said that the result of this decision is "freedom from oppression and threat."
It is significant that, as this drama has unfolded, President Bush has been calling for expanded religious liberty abroad, and, indeed, proclaimed Jan. 16 as Religious Freedom Day to underscore U.S. efforts to expand religious freedom worldwide. In a speech in the United Arab Emirates this week, he claimed that the new era in history will be one that is founded on "the equality of all people before God." But the Fresno story reminds us how complicated this idea actually is. Freedom of religion means that people are free to interpret religious texts in ways that may be intolerant, sexist, racist or homophobic.
In the United States, the solution has been to completely divorce religion from politics - to create a secular state. And, in the United States, we leave people alone to practice their own religion in their own way, even if this means that they are then free to espouse intolerant religious views. So long as those views have no impact on public policy or do not directly harm people, we must tolerate the intolerant.
In a different time, a dispute such as is happening in the Episcopal Church would have led to inquisitions, executions and war. Indeed, in other parts of the world, intolerant religion remains linked to perverse public law. In Saudi Arabia, where President Bush stopped after his visit to the United Arab Emirates, homosexuality remains punishable by death. And last year a rape victim was sentenced to be flogged because she had violated the kingdom's medieval sex segregation laws. Thankfully, in the United States, religious fundamentalists are prohibited from turning biblical principles into law.
It has taken us long centuries of bloodshed to evolve the spirit of religious liberty and the ideal of "equality before God." For this ideal to hold, religious and political power must remain distinct. But this idea is not as simple as we like to believe. The drama in Fresno reminds us that religious liberty means that we may have to permit intolerance. But so long as religious intolerance remains private and disconnected from the law, this is an acceptable compromise. And that is why it is essential to maintain a strong wall of separation between church and state.
Andrew Fiala is an associate professor of philosophy at California State University Fresno and the author of "What Would Jesus Really Do?" (Rowman and Littlefield, 2007).
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/17/ED8JUGFD7.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle