Favoring the Non-Participatory
If one presses, as in the comments to a post by Don Hawthorne, it is possible to get a straightforward answer. Writes Bobby Oliveira of the Constitutional requirement that religion be banned from the public sphere:
Since everyone will not choose to participate, based on belief systems, you cannot allow some belief system to obtain an advantage because they choose to participate. Therefore, no one gets to participate.
The first thing to note, given timing, is that Bobby has provided a particularly apt bit of evidence for my suggestion in the previous post that liberal demands are increasingly exposing themselves as tyranny. Somehow, in the metamorphosis of the “living Constitution,” the mandate for “free exercise of religion” and “freedom of speech” transforms into a requirement that nobody is free to express their religious beliefs in the hopes of affecting the public sphere. Call it “the tyranny of the non-participatory.”
The second thing to note, related to the first, is the impossible mind bending that such post hoc legal reasoning as Bobby’s requires of those who know better than the authors of the Constitution how to constitute a country. After all, isn’t it possible that some groups benefit from universal non-participation of religion in the public debate? I’m thinking, for instance, of those whose religion, such as it is, nigh upon requires them to pollute public airwaves and the entire culture with pornography and graphic violence. For another instance, consider those who speak as if they’ve a positive right to federal funds for morally questionable research. Why is it appropriate to give them an advantage in the government sector?
The answer is that it is not. Thus rationalize those who would bind their inconveniently disagreeable, and incompatibly religious, fellow citizens.