doubtingt

Libertarians sometimes use the argument that the same principles that underlie church-state separation also apply to the government funding-endorsment-establishment of art.

The basic argument is that church-state separation is fundamentally about restricting the gov from using its power and influence to coerce people into adopting ideas, philosophies, and related behaviors that are matters of personal conscience. Art, just like religion, is specifically intented to impact a persons emotions, passions, values, etc. As such, people must be free to expose themselves or not, endorse via taxes or not, ect. works of art.

I personally think the NEA, public television, radio, etc. are huge assets to the culture. However, I also think the above argument accurately assesses the underlying spirit of the establishment clause and the general spirit of individual intellectual freedom at the heart of the constitution.

Note that many conservatives might think they favor this reasoning b/c it gets rid of the NEA, however it equally undermines the legtimacy of gov run museums, etc. that house all of the religious art, etc.

So what are your thoughts?

Is separation of church and state ulitmately about protecting freedom of conscience from gov coercion?

Even if not, isn't this still a guiding principle at the heart of the constitution?

Does gov funding, exhibition, housing, etc., of certain selected artworks violate this principle, and since it is impossible for gov not to be selective here, shouldn't it stop funding any art?

{edited by Toto to fix line breaks}

Shadowy Man

[sarcasm]Freedom of art does not mean freedom from art![/sarcasm]


edited.

doubtingt

I don't know if you're being sacastic, but it certainly does mean
that people must be free from being coerced to endorse, sponsor, or promote personal views of other on matters of conscience. Gov funding of either art or religion necessarily
contradicts this principle.

Shadowy Man

This is a very interesting point though. One to which I haven't given much thought.

The government can effectively regulate the type of art being made by holding the purse-strings. I certainly believe that people should be free to create whatever type of art they want.

Though, art is probably even less well-defined than religion.

doubtingt

Yes, just like people should be free to espouse whatever religious beliefs they want. Prohibiting laws that restrict this freedom and prohibiting laws that force people to promote the views of others via taxation both are aimed at protecting this freedom.
Citizens are perfectly free to form art institutes, fund museums, etc. However, they must also be free not to do these things or not to fund art (i.e., philosophies) that they disagree with.

For the record, this argument equally prohibits gov censorship as it does gov promotion of certain art, religion, ideas, etc.

Toto

The First Amendment was inspired by the founder's views of religious warfare in Europe, in which believers in one religion killed believers in other religions. I can't think of any comparable warfare that has arisen out of art. You don't see patrons of the opera stringing up rap artists (or vice versa), or impressionists doing pitched battle with cubists.

Art can be scandalous, but it's still a different category of human endeavor from religion. Atheists can appreciate religious art, Jews can listen music composed by anti-Semites, Christians can appreciate classical pagan architecture, all without violating their consciences.

The justification for government funding of the arts lies in the externalities of art as an economic endeavor, and in its educational function. We have freedom of thought in universities, but the government still funds them.