Economic and Religious Freedom: Mutually Reinforcing

If there is one thing we have learned over the past 6 years in the United States, it is the mutually reinforcing nature of different expressions of freedom. No form of freedom--religious, civil, political, or economic--is of course absolute. But unjust infringements (intentional or otherwise) on one freedom can easily result in damage being inflicted upon other spheres of freedom.

This is indisputably true, for instance, of religious and political freedom. All totalitarian and most authoritarian regimes usually end up seeking to severely restrict religious liberty. Sometimes this is for ideological or religious reasons. Some religions, for instance, embody very weak notions of tolerance for those of other faiths or none. That creates problems for religious minorities in states such as Iran.

But severe restrictions on religious freedom often have as much to do with seeking to shut down any sphere of life that is outside the government’s control. Thus Communist regimes, for instance, invariably showed limited tolerance for religious organizations, especially those that refuse to accept the state as exercising any authority over questions of religious dogma and doctrine, or those which maintain they have certain obligations to God which will always trump those of the government. This is core to the Chinese Communist regime’s ongoing suppression of those Chinese Catholics and Evangelicals who refuse to submit to the demands of the regime’s religious affairs bureaucracy.

One area that has received less attention, however, is the connection between economic liberty and religious freedom. For many Americans and others, this has not been so obvious:or at least it wasn’t until cases such as the Hobby Lobby case started making their way through the American court system.

Mutually reinforcing: that’s how the Founders saw the various forms of freedom. And the sooner we return to that vision of liberty, the better–for religion, for business,for everyone.

acceptance of government funding can encourage many people working in religious organizations to view government as their main authority. This should not be surprising. If 80 percent of a religious charity’s income is coming from state financial assistance and government contracts for which religious organizations compete, it would seem that the government effectively controls that religious charity’s purse-strings. And that means the state is well and truly in charge.

. . . and even this understates the problem; if your church doesn’t participate in a government program - but takes cognizance of the fact that government assistance exists in dealing with people in need - the church’s charitable outreach is contaminated.
Just by telling someone in need that the government will provide for them, you denigrate the love of God in favor of the “love” of a prince. A prince who is happy to buy love with money he did nothing to deserve.

This is also related to Eisenhower’s famous “military-industrial complex” speech. Which was not limited to the possible influence of the “military-industrial complex” on the government, but also cautioned about the intertwining of science and government interests:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address
That is a pretty good description of Global Warming “science” - people who start out wanting to be truth-seekers, and end up being owned by the government.

Thank you for the post and link. Good stuff.

We should all remember Lysenko and Lysenkoism - government promoting a false belief and attacking anyone who would dissent.

“Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.