< Continued from page 1

About.com Rating



Curry argues very effectively against those who would have the government aid all religions ?without preference,? a position known as nonpreferentialism and which advocates helping religions equally. At one point, Curry writes:

• ?The notion of nonpreferential governmental authority in religion can only survive in an abstract, logical world quite cut off from the realities of human history.?

This same argument works against his own position, however - the distinctions he keeps trying to draw may seem reasonable on paper, but they cannot survive contact with the real world.


The government cannot define the secular without also defining the religious by implication. The government cannot be ?powerless? in matters of religion without also, in effect, being neutral in matters of religion.

Curry?s arguments are worth considering, however, because they force separationists to be careful and not engage in excess. For example, he objects to the metaphor of a ?wall of separation? because he assumes that such a wall must necessarily enclose religion away from society and hence represents a form of hostility against religion. This is incorrect, of course - the wall can just as readily be seen as enclosing the state, or not enclosing anything. Even when it is seen as enclosing religion it can be seen as doing so to preserve religion, just as Roger Williams did.

Regardless of how one does end up see the nature of this ?wall,? it is also true that sloppy thinking could lead a person to the conclusion that it encloses religion because it is dangerous and evil. This does foster an attitude of hostility towards religion which separationists should not develop - thus, perhaps Curry?s arguments can help some people retain the proper perspective.

Although Curry?s arguments against the separationist position may be largely incorrect, they ironically also serve as a corrective against some possible instances of poor reasoning. It would be useful for separationists to remember what he has to say in order to keep from developing negative attitudes and incorrect assumptions. He also offers effective arguments against the accommodationist position which has become popular in recent years - as a result, it is a book which many may find useful, although it should not be accepted uncritically.

« Back...