The value of a secular state September 26, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in News and politics, Religion.trackback
Crooks and Liars does a lot of good work, and provides invaluable support to progressives trying to keep abreast of the actions of the mainstream media. but John Amato’s latest contribution seems to miss the point. Discussing a very creepy “Jesus Camp,” Amato adds this
The directors claim that, among those who see the movie, cracks can be spotted within this conservative Christian movement (though they feel the movement “hasn’t peaked”). Their claim was that the cracks are represented by individuals who say “My faith is not represented by these people; I don’t think my faith should be a part of politics.” However, I would STRONGLY suggest that cracks are more likely identified in groups (like Jim Wallis’ group, Sojourners) that say “this kind of politics does not represent my faith.” I want to be as straightforward as possible about this, Jim. I’m with Amy Sullivan on this one: if Dems feel it necessary to take the “separation of church and state” argument to defend their position — where separation of church and state means that the state has been bleached of all remnants of religion (which I call a fundamentalist secularism), WE WILL LOSE and LOSE BADLY for a long time. Not only that, but we will have to undo the gains of a more humanistic government in the last century and a half: abolition, suffrage, child labor laws, and the civil rights movement, to name a few, will have to also be bleached of the critical public voices of religious activists (try scrubbing MLK of his religious overtones, for instance).
I’m trying to give Amato the benefit of the doubt here and assume that he means that the state should be tolerant of all religious belief and unbelief. But I suspect he does not mean that. He speaks of removing “all remnants of religion” as though us crazy anti-Christian lefties are all trying to make sure no one mentions God in public. While there are a few–very vocal–people who spend time trying to keep religious people from having a say, the vast majority of those of us who believe in a secular state do so for very different reasons: because we recognize that a state which promotes one set of religious beliefs (or religious belief itself) over other beliefs is simply not acceptable in a free society.
Amato needs to recognize that, while there are a few people who might qualify as “secular fundamentalists” there is a big difference between PZ Myers and Pat Robertson. Most of us who wish to see the state separate itself from particular religious beliefs are not interested in forcing anyone else to share out belief or lack thereof. The same thing cannot be said for true fundamentalists–that is, religious fundamentalists. They are on a crusade to convert the world to their view of reality, and are up front about their desire to remake our government in their image.
Most troubling of all, though, is that Amato seems to be buying into right-wing framing on this issue. He is implicitly presenting this issue as existing between religious fundamentalists and secular fundamentalists. Even though he is pushing for what he sees as a middle ground, he fails to understand that by accepting the idea that there are two equally troubling, equally powerful, morally equivalent extremes, he continues to reinforce the wingnut version of us-versus-them reality.
To achieve a state that does not show favoritism to some religions and does not oppress people for their religious beliefs, we need to change the terms of the debate: no matter what we believe, we should all recognize that all beliefs are threatened whenever any our threatened, that we are only free to believe–or not believe–what we wish when others are also free to believe as they would.
The debate is not between religious people and evil secularists, it is between those who would push their religion on us and those who believe we should all be free to practice our faiths. If we accept anything less, if we give in to the pressure of the right-wing religious vote, we will sacrifice everything that makes a democratic society mean anything at all.
One final note: I sincerely hope that I have misunderstood Amato, and I would invite him to clarify his position, as I have no wish to misrepresent his position.
Obviously I don’t wish to speak for Amato, but I think an important part of his point is that if Democrats maintain a hard-line stance on the absolute separation of church and state, then that is likely to alienate many voters. I do think he has a point there, if for no reason other than the fact that many people who are made uncomfortable by connections between church and state are not necessarily getting out and voting–not to mention the number of people who claim not to care either way, and so don’t feel the need to try to change the status quo.
Where Amato loses me for good is when he states that wanting a completely secular government means that “we will have to undo the gains of a more humanistic government in the last century and a half: abolition, suffrage, child labor laws, and the civil rights movement, to name a few, will have to also be bleached of the critical public voices of religious activists.” Why? I’d like to backtrack for a moment and quote the first sentence of Wikipedia’s definition of humanism: “Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism.” Why must that idea be stripped from our history? Many of the gains listed above may have been brought about by lawmakers’ or social leaders’ religious beliefs (though I’m not entirely willing to concede that they were), but I believe that they were ultimately incorporated into our laws because of humanism–which I should point out is often placed in opposition with theism. Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was Christian, and his faith prompted him to do great things. However, for one thing, he kept his speeches fairly ecumenical (go take a look at “I Have a Dream”), and for another, he was not a policymaker.
Furthermore, on that note, I (as someone who is a firm supporter of the separation of church and state) have absolutely no objection to policymakers leading spiritual or religious lives. My objection comes when policymakers attempt (and often succeed) in limiting the freedoms of Americans based on that spirituality or religion. Some examples:
1. Denying GLBTQ people the freedom to marry.
2. Denying women reproductive freedom.
3. Openly endorsing a particular faith by conspicuously posting its tenets (this is controversial, I know, but I ask Christians to consider how they would feel if a government building hung Tibetan prayer flags in its archway or posted a stone monument to the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha).
I think all too often religious people understand “separation of church and state” to somehow mean that we advocate an entirely atheistic or areligious society, when that’s not the case at all. Personally, I would simply like to see mutual respect between the religious and the non-religious, the spiritual and the non-spiritual, and I think the only way to reach that point is to keep religion out of government–and that includes anything overtly against religion as well. It should be a non-issue, as far as I’m concerned. Perhaps that’s too idealistic of me.
In short (I didn’t intend to write this much, but got a bit incensed…), I agree, EB. We don’t lose if we advocate the separation of church and state; we lose if we continue to allow the right wing to set the terms of the debate.
I’m with you on this one, EB. I just can’t understand Christians sometimes. Those who gave their lives to the work of separating church and state IN ORDER TO BENEFIT CHRISTIANS IN AMERICA must be rolling over in their graves at all this talk of “separation” as if it were intending to exile faith from government. Church and State does not equal Religion and Government. Religion is a personal issue and cannot be separated from any aspect of life. No governing body will ever be without individuals who hold religious beliefs. Church and State MUST be separated in order to ensure freedom for any religious group. People are so short-sighted. Separation is the best thing that happened to this country in its early stages. I hate how we’re trying to break down that wall, blind to the fact that it will fall on top of us.
I can’t believe that you godless Communist scum keep wanting to kick our lord and savior out of America once and for all! Don’t you know that the Bible says we need to make everybody Christians by force or else? It’s in THE BIBLE, HELLO! Jeez Louise, some people are so dense. Reference? No, I don’t need a reference. Hezekiah or someplace. ITS IN THE BIBLE