State support for Religion: Between Consensus and Compromise 1 (original) (raw)

In this paper, the focus will be on state financing of religious communities. After a conceptual clarification, it has been argued that a consensus about the value of autonomy is typical for liberalism: even though the concept of autonomy is not uncontroversial, we cannot ignore the fact that, in a liberal state, citizens should at least be able to lead their lives as they see fit. Accordingly, a consensus about the role of the state in guaranteeing the conditions for autonomy (no-coercion, liberal education and the availability of a wide range of valuable options) is also possible. Given the fact of reasonable pluralism, however, this consensus is not possible with regard to the value of particular options: for some people, museums and operas are valuable, while other people prefer romance novels and karate movies; some people adhere to Protestantism, while others identify with Islam. As a result of the diversity of citizens' individual preferences, and the lack of resources, the state cannot support all valuable options. Therefore, a compromise about state support for particular 'valuable' options, such as religion, seems to be the only option. In order to be liberal and democratic, these compromises should not be a part of the constitution, but it should be left over to civil society to decide whether and how one or more religion(s) should be supported. Because national state-church regulations are, as a result of history, often part of the constitution, there is still a lot of work to do at this point.