Point of View
BREAKPOINT: Why Lincoln matters: Reason, religion and public policy
By CHARLES COLSON
BreakPoint
Published September 16, 2004
For the past few weeks, it seems that every time you watched a
cable news program or a convention commentary, there was former
New York governor Mario Cuomo, talking about his new book, Why
Lincoln Matters: Today More Than Ever.
Cuomo urges "conservatives and liberals alike" to
"resist the impulse to make Lincoln over in their own image."
Yet, in matters of religion and public life, Cuomo's Lincoln
bears an uncanny resemblance to Cuomo himself.
Cuomo told CNN's Larry King that Lincoln "was not a
particularly religious person." I disagree, as do many
scholars-but we'll leave that to historians. What I will take
issue with is how Cuomo defines faith: as a suspension of
intellect.
For Cuomo, the lack of absolute proof disqualifies a
religiously informed position as a basis of public policy. That's
why, according to Cuomo, Lincoln "would never have built a
public policy on a purely religious premise." Instead,
Lincoln would have insisted on a "premise that everybody,
religious or not religious ... would accept," one with a
"rationale that goes beyond your religious faith."
Cuomo makes it clear that he's referring to President Bush.
The former governor claims that when Bush announced his policy on
embryonic stem-cell research, he was saying, in effect: "This
is what I believe, because I'm a religious person. And you must
believe it, too." Of course, President Bush said no such
thing.
The idea that opposition to embryonic stem-cell research is
purely religiously-driven is fatuous. Many opponents, like Dr.
Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, are
not moved by religion. Their opposition proceeds from what
science tells us about the humanity of the fetus. Their ethical
concerns are grounded in natural law and where experimentation on
humans leads us.
Cuomo's arguments are best understood as a sequel to his 1984
speech at Notre Dame, in which he argued that deeply held
convictions, especially religiously informed ones, must await
"a consensus view of right and wrong" before they can
become the basis for public policy. To do otherwise, he claimed,
is to suspend reason in policy debates.
Wrong. Faith guides and often transcends intellect and reason,
but it does not require its suspension. Is the governor really
suggesting that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and
John Paul II suspended their intellect? Has he forgotten that the
university system was created by the church?
The greatest irony of the governor's invocation of Lincoln is
that there was no "consensus view of right and wrong"
regarding slavery. Slavery ended despite the lack a consensus
because people whose faith taught them that the status quo was
wrong set out to change it. They learned to express their
convictions in terms that people of different faiths, or no
faith, could understand. What they did not do was wait until
everyone agreed with them.
Much the same can be said of the Civil Rights movement. When
Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote his Letter From Birmingham Jail,
he invoked Augustine and Aquinas in support of defying an unjust
law.
So why should contemporary religiously inspired concerns be
held to a different standard, as people are trying to do today?
Our sixteenth president, for one, would have found the idea
astonishing.
Copyright © 2004 Prison Fellowship. Used with permission.