Ciao!: Church, State, and the Citizen

Church, State, and the Citizen

12.01.2004

My weekly Herald column ran a day early (online here). This week, it’s on the difference between separation of church & state and separation of religion & citizenship. Below’s the original version.

A few months ago, I had an interesting run in with a faculty member. Casually conversing at a wedding, we spoke about politics. Soon enough, she stated that “Bush is an idiot.” Intrigued, I asked her what made her think so. Our lame duck president certainly has his flaws, and I was interested to hear which specific faults this person would focus on. Her answer? “Because he’s a born again Christian.”
So, in one fell swoop, an entire religion and all its participants were thrown together as “idiots” who had no role to play in politics or public life in general. Amazing. Because you couldn’t get away with saying that about, say, Muslims.

Don’t get me wrong. There’s every reason to defend the Muslim faith and its practitioners — along with defending Buddhists, Jews, Mormons, Krishnas, and the multitude of faiths. And, as we hear routinely from intellectuals and punditry and celebrities, Islam is a varied faith, crossing race, ethnicity, and class, and should be respected. Agreed.

But should we extend the same courtesy to Christians?

After all, Christianity is a varied faith, with practitioners of every color, ethnicity, and creed. It’s as diverse as Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Baptism, Lutheranism, and more. And, like all religions, it has extreme contrasts. Conservative Jerry Falwell is a Southern Baptist minister; liberal Al Sharpton is a Pentecostal Evangelical preacher.

What I find fascinating, however, is the often public outcry against Christianity and Christians in broad suis generis attacks. You couldn’t get away with such attacks again homosexuals, women, racial minorities, or any other group. If I were to argue, based on a few experiences, that all black people steal or that all Jews are misers or that all women are vain, I’d be called a bigot. And rightly so! What makes the situation any different when dealing with Christians?

Arguments against Christians using their faith to dictate their politics ring hollow. While there should be a separation of church and state — something I fervently believe in — there’s no reason why there should be a separation of church and the citizen. After all, a separation of church and state was meant explicitly to protect citizens from state (or public) interference in their chosen worship. Just as the state can’t proscribe a religious faith, it can’t prevent citizens from believing as they wish (so long as their rituals don’t directly endanger others).

But should citizens have a right to use their personal religious convictions in civic life?

I don’t see why not.

All individuals tend to operate under some set of moral or ethical convictions. Why do we oppose the testing of cosmetics on animals? Why do we find genocide reprehensible? What makes us oppose military action? Our public stance on so many public issues stem principally from our moral and ethical convictions. And I don’t see why it should matter whether these convictions come from a religious faith, or from adherence to some set of secular teachings.

I believe that strong opposition to religious values in public life — even if only aimed at Christians — is dangerous. First, because it tends to alienate many Christians who see themselves as besieged in a “culture war” aimed at destroying their way of life. If we oppose American imperialism meant to impose liberalism on a reluctant Muslim society, we should likewise oppose attempts to impose secularism on a reluctant Christian society. At least for the sake of consistency.

But the main danger to attacking Christians for bringing elements of their faith to their public civic discourse is that it implies a rejection of moral debate. When we decry all those millions of Americans who voted based on “moral issues” we implicitly tell those same millions of Americans that we don’t view moral issues important. We tell them that our positions weren’t based on moral issues. But isn’t pacifism a moral issue? Couldn’t universal health care be a moral issue? Couldn’t ending poverty be a moral issue?

If we attack the right of millions of Americans to bring their morals to the forum of democratic debate, we commit two basic errors: One, we lose the ability to appeal to our fellow citizens’ moral compass to win their votes. Two, we signal to them that we don’t believe in morals and, therefore, that we don’t believe our positions moral (they are, at best, amoral). When confronted with such a contrast, most individuals who believe in morals will choose the option that presents itself in moral language.

I’m not arguing here for prayer in schools or for the Ten Commandments to be displayed at public courthouses. I believe that the state must be secular, and public institutions should as well. But that doesn’t mean that Christians (even “born again” ones) can’t serve as teachers or judges. At the very least, we should extend to Christians the same courtesies we extend to any other group.

Posted by Miguel at 02:18 PM

Comments

It seems a common misconception among those who normally don't identify themselves with a particular religion (and perhaps many that do as well) is that their opinions and approach to communal life don't carry the weight of religious conviction. We do well to consider religion simply a network, cohesive or fragmented as it may be, of one's values and responses to their environment and to realize that people, through their lifestyle choices, deify consumption and humanitarianism just as they do Christ or Allah.

Posted by: Joshua Clayton at December 1, 2004 07:06 PM

Yes, I agree completely. Many atheists (and agnostics, too) hold their convictions as fervently as do many religious people. Forgetting that can be dangerous, since assuming your beliefs aren't beliefs but "objective, indisputable fact" can lead to brutal consequences. Not saying it has to, but the road to hell is paved (in part) w/ the good intentions of would be benevolent philosopher kings.

Posted by: Miguel at December 1, 2004 10:45 PM

I don't understand what you meant by this sentence. Please explain? "When confronted with such a contrast, most individuals who believe in morals will choose the option that presents itself in moral language."

Interesting article. You point out that attacking those who make their choices based on religious grounds is just as discriminatory as attacks on gender, homosexuality.

It does seem that arguments made on moral grounds with a religious source is deemed inferior than an argument from a secular one.

Posted by: Stephanie at December 2, 2004 02:39 PM

What I mean is that if voter X believes in some set of morals, and I has two options. Option A uses "moral" language (appealing to my faith, my convictions, etc). Or. Option B frequently makes fun of people who use "moral" language (e.g. making fun of religious people) or who refuses to engage in a debate on "values" (e.g. making fun of people who vote on "moral issues" as happened after the election). Who will X most likely vote for?

When people express the opinion that "morals should have nothing to do w/ politics", they sound like amoral Machiavellians (in the negative stereotypes). I don't think Clinton's sexcapades were that important. But. Clinton's *character* (or any politician's for that matter) is very important. To refuse to engage in a "character debate" implies that a person's moral character is unimportant. To most people, a person's character is extremely important. Even for leftists, that's why the "Bush lied, people died" slogan is so powerful. It's a critique of Bush's moral compass.

But to pretend that your interpretation of what morals should be allowed at the political table are the "correct" ones, while those of others (who you disagree w/) are "incorrect" or "irrelevant" ones is not only discriminatory & elitist, it's also suicidal. Especially in a country founded by people who specifically fled Europe because they refused to let elites dictate their moral convictions. The famous "middle Americans" have (I think) a knee-jerk reaction against people telling them what to think.

Not sure if that answers your question.

Posted by: Miguel at December 2, 2004 03:11 PM

thanks for explaining. I was looking for a clearer definition of morality. Does the concept of morality constitute universal objective values? And could one's concept of morality depend partly on a society's idea of morality, and thus relative?

Since christians are likely to hold a universal idea of morality and believe in a divine duty, they are more apt to pursue civic actions that align with their beliefs. I think such a position riles a lot of people who don't base their values some sort of religiosity.

Another thing is, for those who attack christians for bringing elements of their faith to their public civic discourse, it dopesn't imply a rejection of moral debate or moral values. Infact, I think those who do motivated by a different concept of morality, one that's dependent on probable and forseeable consequences. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/#4)

Posted by: Stephanie at December 3, 2004 11:11 PM

Of course, Christians tend to bring their moral beliefs to civic discourse. But so do non-Christians. All people bring *their* moral beliefs into their political actions. But when you hear some (and of course I knot it's "some" & not "all") people on the left throwing insults at Christians because they bring their moral beliefs to civic dicourse, then it's pretty transparently just an attempt to pretend that their moral views aren't actual moral, but rather "fact". It's actually a weird secular version of the Spanish Inquisition — an attempt to force others to accept a specific moral discourse over another. In short, it's not "liberal" at all.

Posted by: Miguel at December 3, 2004 11:49 PM