On The Limits of the Enlightenment View of Religious Belief

Since the 18th century, the dominant public view of religious belief has been that it is a matter of private concern between the individual and his or her Deity, mediated by a body and clergy person. The Founders view, despite a generation of right-wing rhetoric to the contrary, was always perfectly in line with this particular notion; thus the refusal, built in to the Constitution over protests from certain Protestant groups (due to anti-Catholic bigotry), of any religious test for national public office (there were various such tests in most state constitutions into the late 19th century). Jefferson's oft-quoted line concerning his apathy towards the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of others is the sine qua non summation of this particular point of view - what it means to be an American, in terms of matters of public concern, is limited to certain questions and brackets out others.

Standing behind this attitude is the idea that religious belief is principally a cognitive activity. To be a faithful Christian or a faithful Jew is to assent to certain statements as "true" and others as "false". These statements, usually referred to in the Christian tradition as doctrine, are the core identifiers of what it means to be a believer. How each individual translates this assent in to action is up to his or her own conscience. We are, for better or worse, free agents, and there is not, nor should there be, any public decisions regarding what is or is not correct belief and practice.

This idea, put in to practice in the United States, has been remarkably fruitful for the burgeoning of religious belief. We are a religion-soaked, even besotted, nation. Freed from the strictures and limitations of a legally-imposed system of belief, our churches divide and multiply like amoeba, splitting off and branching out, based on everything from racial and regional differences to disputes over the most arcane doctrinal disputes. The result is that, for one example, my little hometown of Waverly, NY has more churches than bars (although attendance at the latter is, I think, more steady than at the former) - from your traditional Catholic, Baptist, and United Methodist to Christian Missionary Alliance (a break-away from the UM Church during the on-going discussion over union with the EUB church in the early- to mid-1960's; they feared a watering down of the traditional Methodist concern over mission) and Church of the Nazarene (another Methodist step-child, born in the Holiness movement of the mid-19th century).

What are we to do, however, when our consciences conflict with the law? How are we to live our lives if, in living with integrity our adherence to certain principles, we come in to conflict with the larger society? Since the mid-20th century, there has been a recognition that what are known as the "Peace Churches" (principally the Mennonites and Quakers) are, and should have, exceptions allowed for them when it comes to matters of national defense. Thus, during the years of legally enforced indenture in the military (the draft), members of these groups were allowed to serve in non-combat roles, or even offered alternative service in accordance with their religious beliefs. What of those, however, who so believe but are not members of these groups?

At the United Methodist Church's website is a story, found here of a retired United Methodist minister who is an active and on-going tax protester, refusing to pay a portion or all of his taxes because of his conscientious objection to the dominance of the military in our national life. The IRS, not recognizing such activity by United Methodists as legal, has been garnisheeing his pension to collect on back taxes and fees. The General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits has stepped in, sending a check for the full amount along with a letter of protest to the IRS. The story from the United Methodist News Service says in part:

Because the denomination’s Social Principles support conscientious objection, the levy "has, in essence, coerced the General Board into violating one of the church’s deeply held principles of faith," the letter declared. "It has put the General Board in a position of punishing Rev. Schwiebert’s conscience, as opposed to supporting it, as the church so clearly teaches."

I am not writing this to defend or criticize Schweibert's actions vis-a-vis the tax protest; I am writing to ask what we should do in regards to such a claim. What is the demarcation line between serious, legitimate tax protest and simple refusal to pay taxes? There are whole groups of people (some of whom hold elective office) who believe that the income tax is, at heart, confiscatory and immoral. Should they be allowed to not pay taxes because they assent to certain (non-religious) beliefs regarding the efficacy and morality of the tax code? Or should exceptions be made only for those adhering to certain religious beliefs? Wouldn't doing this, however, violate the First Amendment, or at the very least, expose a certain fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Enlightenment idea of private assent?

I do not have any answers to these questions, and as I am a practical person at heart, I think it important to note that I believe quite firmly that societies draw all sorts of lines between what is and is not acceptable public behavior all the time. This particular question provides an opportunity for clarifying such a line, and refining it through case law and IRS regulation. My larger point, however, is to raise the question of what is driving this particular issue right now - has not the privatizing of religious belief been exposed as insufficient for wending our way through the straights and narrows of public life? Do we not now need, perhaps, to re-examine the role of religious practice rather than just religious belief in our public life? I ask these questions without offering an answer, because I think this is the beginning, rather than the end, of a debate that could be very healthy for us as a society.