156
tation." Here is a practical sug–
gestion. Burke worked out a sys–
tem that would protect property
from ability. The New Conserva–
tives, if running for office, might
propose that "seventy-five per cent
of our legislators be chosen from
among the hundred wealthiest
land owners in the states which
they respectively represent."
Burke's second practical sugges–
tion would be to exclude eighty–
five per cent of all adult males
from any active participation in
politics. He computed that one out
of seven might have sufficient in–
dependence, education, and leisure
to vote intelligently. All salaried
persons without independent in–
comes would be excluded. Not
that Burke would have granted
the vote to this minority as a
"right." He only conceded that
such extensive participation might
fall within "natural limits," and
thus be compatible with civilized
government.
It is said that Burke did not
think religion "a convenient myth
to keep popular appetites within
bounds." True, he thought it a
"necessary" myth, and was specific
in his proposals regarding church–
state relations. He beheved in a
State Church; religion, being a
fundamental interest oi the whole
society, should no more be trusted
"to the unsteady and precarious
contribution of indh·iduals" than
civil or military public service. It
was the starving unemployed who
would be thrown upon the mercy
of such unsteady and precarious
arrangements. Arguing for religion
on grounds of public utility, Burke
made religion subservient to the
state. If, as he proposed,
you will have religion publicly
practiced and publicly taught, you
must have the power to say what
that religion will be . . . your de–
termination may be unwise . . .
but it cannot be unjust, hard or
oppressive, or contrary to the lib–
erty of any man, or in the least
degree exceeding your province.
It could not be hard or oppres–
sive because the truth or falseness
of religious opinions was not
im–
portant to Burke.
If
people be–
lieved in a God who sent them
to an eternal Hell for disobeying
"legitimate" authority they had
"religion." Otherwise they were
atheists, "who are never .. .. never
to be tolerated." Because every
member of society was vitally con–
cerned that all others believe in
such a God, no rational property
owner could quibble about sup–
porting a state church which in–
doctrina ted the people in this fun–
damentally necessary faith. The
proposal is that we establish a
church which makes divine retri–
bution its fundamental tenet, and
that we suppress as atheistic all
religions which do not adhere to
this belief.
Burke was defending the status
quo. He feared that the French
example would undermine the con–
stitution he loved. Most disturb–
ing of all were the so-called
"rights of man." Just what did he
