Continuing our conversation about the market, virtue, and everything, I have a question: should people be forced to join a church?
It can’t be reasonably argued that every person—or even that most people—for whom religion isn’t an important part of life is a convinced atheist. Instead, the discrepancy is largely the result of ignorance: people who haven’t read the Bible; who haven’t attended church when they were kids; who don’t really know what Christianity is all about. You might say these people have been “crippled,” in a sense, by their families or surroundings, in that they will live and die without really being exposed to the teachings of God. This is certainly not fair to these people. They may not know it, but they are in serious moral and personal danger, through no fault of their own. Should this not be remedied by forcing people to attend church?
I’m not being facetious. Liberal Jesus writes that he “think[s] that we should create government programs that mitigate the immediate harms that result from the imbalance of resources,” but if this is so, it should hardly be limited to material resources. It would seem to be equally important that we mitigate the imbalance of access to Christianity, which is caused by all sorts of unfair social circumstances. And if, “[a]s a society, we should help the poor get resources—such as healthy families and good schooling—that will really help them play in the market,” why should this not also include helping them to get the moral teachings they need?—things which are, of course, conducive to healthy families?
On what principle, in other words, can we say that “society” should be responsible for people’s material needs, but should leave them free to run their own lives when it comes to their spiritual needs?
Comments policy