I am currently, in this blog,
reviewing some elements of rhetoric. In
this posting, I want to address a different concern. The occasion of this sidestep is because Pope
Francis issued an encyclical, Laudato Si,
on environmental degradation and climate change. CNN summarizes the Pope’s effort as
follows:
Citing the scientific consensus that
global warming is disturbingly real, Francis left little doubt as to whom to
blame.
Big businesses, energy companies,
short-sighted politicians, scurrilous scientists, laissez faire economists,
indifferent individuals, callous Christians and myopic media criticism.
“The Earth, our home, is beginning to
look more and more like an immense pile of filth,” Francis said. “In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament
that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.”[1]
My purpose here is not to comment on the content of the
encyclical; I haven’t had the opportunity to read it. I do want to take this opportunity to further
clarify a point I have made previously in this blog: religious beliefs and the general messages emanating
from churches should not be used to justify
public policy. I take this opportunity
to amplify this message because I generally agree with the Pope on this environmental
issue. What I have argued is that
religiously based beliefs can inform but not determine policy. In this case, I maintain it is not legitimate
to claim that a policy should be adopted merely because a religious leader
argues for its adoption. Beyond being
motivated to look, analyze, and take into consideration what the Pope is
saying, one needs to further justify any relevant action on a secular basis and
reasoning. It is not enough to argue
that God wants us to act in a certain way.
Such a position is an imposition:
an imposition of religious beliefs on fellow citizens who might or might
not hold the same ones. Once government
adopts any policy, it has coercive means to insure compliance. For such a force in a democratic, pluralistic
society, we need to be able to justify such a move on reasons that do not rely
on any supernatural beliefs.
In choosing the environmental issue to make my point, I am
not picking a concern that is difficult to cite secular reasons for action and
policy changes. But there are other
issues not so easily analyzed from a secular angle. Take the issue of abortion. As is well known, the Roman Catholic Church
has been a consistent anti-abortion voice.
Catholic authorities are not alone in their condemnation of abortion;
many other religions have a similar position.
But if one looks closely at their rationale against the practice, it is
heavily based on religious beliefs about when personhood begins. Given the ramifications of abortion policy –
how it potentially has immense consequences on the lives of people – coercive,
governmental action needs to be held highly legitimate in order to be
effective. Otherwise, it will be defied
in large numbers – our national history provides ample testimony to the
eventuality of this consequence.
[1]
Retrieved from the Internet; see http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-francis-climate-technology-encyclical/
.
