Michael W. McConnell is Professor of Constitutional Law at Stanford University and specializes in Church and State issues. A few weeks ago he was one of the keynote speakers at the 6th Congress of ICLARS ("International Consortium for Law and Religious Studies"), which we recently discussed in Omnes. More than 400 congress participants gathered to reflect on "Human Dignity, Law, and Religious Diversity: Shaping the Future of Intercultural Societies".
In European countries some people think that politicians with Christian convictions should not be allowed to hold public office because of the bias of their beliefs. What do you think of this argument?
In a free country with separation between church and state, citizens of all religions, or no religion at all, are equally entitled to hold public office and argue for their understandings of the common good on the basis of whatever belief system they find convincing. That applies to Christians no less than Jews, Muslims, atheists, and everyone else. In the United States, this openness to all faiths is specifically reflected in Article VI of the Constitution: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". As to claims of "bias," some people need to look in the mirror.
Is it possible to separate the private sphere from the public sphere, and to what extent is it a good thing to do so?
Civil liberties law necessarily subjects the public sphere to a different set of norms than the private sphere. For example, the state is required to remain neutral in ways that private persons are not. This is especially true with respect to religion. We all have the right to hold certain religious views to be true and others to be false. The state has no such role.
Michael Sandel argues that in Western societies there has been no real public debate on many controversial moral issues (abortion, euthanasia, surrogacy, gay marriage, etc.). Do you agree with this idea?
Certainly not, though some people on both sides are so certain of their positions that they try to silence dissenters. I do agree with Sandel that the public argument on some of these issues is less robust and less well-informed than I would like to see.
In many countries some laws considered "morally progressive" do not receive sufficient parliamentary support, but are passed in constitutional court rulings. What do you think of this way of proceeding? Are there any cases that you have found adequate or inadequate?
I believe that courts are properly limited to enforcing constitutional norms that have been adopted by the people through the various processes of constitutional formation. Courts are not entitled to usurp the legislative function by imposing legal rules solely on the basis that judges believe them to be "progressive" (or normatively attractive in any other way). Roe v. Wade is the most conspicuous example in the U.S.
As an expert on the American constitution, what is your opinion of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling?
Roe v. Wade was one of the most poorly reasoned opinions in the history of the Supreme Court. It was not based on any plausible reading of the constitutional text, nor on the precedents of the court, nor on longstanding traditions and practices of the American people.
What do you think of the woke culture and cancellation with respect to its impact on academia?
I disapprove of all extremism, including woke extremism, and of all efforts at mass censorship. The homogeneity of opinion within academia in American is a grave threat to liberal education. This would be true if the academy were one-sided and intolerant in support of any other ideology as well.
The gender vision is receiving more and more social and legal approval in the legislation of many countries. Little by little those who do not agree with these ideas find it more difficult to educate their children according to their convictions or to develop professional work (for example in the medical field) according to their anthropological vision. Do you think that the freedom of thought and expression of people who have a more conservative vision is being respected?
Obviously it is not. People's thinking about gender and sex are in rapid flux, and one extreme view should not be treated as authoritative. People have a human right to take a different view, and parents have a human right not to have public institutions force a particular ideology on their children.
