What's wrong with religious establishment?

Journal article

Is it possible for a liberal society to have an established church? After outlining the conditions for liberal establishment, I take from David Hume a secular argument in its favour that points to the moderating effect of establishment on religious discourse and practice. I examine the claim that state support for religion violates liberal equality, and argue that, with respect to state-provided public goods generally, what matters is that the whole package should be of roughly equal benefit to each citizen; it is not required that every citizen should value each distinct good. I claim that religious establishment can have valuable effects for both believers and non-believers, and thereby count as a public good. I then examine the charge that establishment always conveys a message of disparagement to those outside the favoured church, making them into second-class citizens, as both Martha Nussbaum and Cécile Laborde have claimed. Understood as a claim about the experience of minority groups, however, it is unsupported by empirical evidence. Understood as an interpretative claim about the meaning of establishment, it fails to distinguish between privileging an institution and privileging the people attached to it. Finally, I point out that religious minorities may favour an established church as a shield against the pervasive secularism of most modern liberal societies.

Authors: Miller, D

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Reviewed (other)
• Publisher: Springer
• Journal: Criminal Law and Philosophy
• Publication date: 2019-06-14
• Acceptance date: 2019-04-24
• DOI: 10.1007/s11572-019-09496-7
• EISSN: 1871-9805
• ISSN: 1871-9791
• Keywords: established church; liberalism; FFR; Martha Nussbaum; Cécile Laborde; religion; public goods