Despite my faith in
God, I’ve always maintained that the separation of church and state was a
healthy part of this nation’s history. And it is a part of history: I’ll list
the Enlightenment and Deist influences in our founding when others claim the
U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. I’ll point out that “under God” was
only added to the pledge and “In God we trust” only added to our currency in
the mid-twentieth century. I’ll cringe when I see an American flag in a nave or
sanctuary.
On a selfish note,
if there was not a separation of church and state, then Catholicism would have
never been tolerated here, and my joining the Church would have been a
monumental hurdle. On a less selfish note, the country had seen the corruption
of European intermingling faith and politics, resulting in lots of bloodshed,
and sought a place where one could express his conscience without the threat of
execution. People could worship freely and express their political views freely
and work together on common interests. The public square could be civil without
being uniformed.
But over time, that
idea of diverse ideologies coming together to build society got distorted. It
is no longer alright to have differing ideas. Diversity means diverse in looks,
ethnicities, genders, and orientations. But you must be uniform in your
religious and political stances. This article in the Wall Street Journal discusses the
current problem with liberalism: in its claim to celebrate diversity, it is
intolerant of an individual’s conscience.
As I became
Catholic, my political stances became more liberal. Issues of social justice,
dignity of work, just economics, respect for the environment, preservation for
all life, were all influenced by my understanding of the faith. But so too were
issues of family structure, sexual ethics, and religious liberty. In the binary
world of American politics, I couldn’t find a home—even if I wanted to.
In liberalism, it’s
kinda-sorta ok to believe in God. As long as that belief doesn’t contradict established
liberal politics. Your God loves the poor, hates war, and is all about love is
love is love? Come on in. Your God requires you to follow certain moral
standards, profess a creed, and convert others? Take your bronze-age ideas
elsewhere, bigot. Hippy Jesus is very big; he was just a brown dude who spoke
up for outcasts and preached love. Well, he also overturned tables, cursed
trees that didn’t bear fruit, warned of hell for non-repentants, and asked his
followers to eat his body. Oh, and he was God; that was kind of his thing.
Jesus didn’t come to
organize the masses in political resistance or overthrow the Empire. He didn’t
come to chill with prostitutes and thieves and be totally cool with their
lifestyles. He came to defeat death, to open up the kingdom of heaven, to reunite
man with his creator. He poured out mercy and love. But that mercy and love has
a context that cannot be pushed aside in favor of feel-good relativism.
I used to think it
was sort of silly that America took up the banner of God in its fight against “godless”
communists. How did saying “under God” undermine a political foe? But it was
true that the communists were godless. Atheism was the state religion.
Adherence to the state system was the de facto doctrine. Who needs a God-guided
conscience when the political state can instruct you?
Maybe the USSR fell,
but part of its ideology has won. Because there is a belief in western politics
now that beliefs must be uniformly secular. God-guided conscience cannot be
tolerated, even when tolerance is a purported principle of the state. A
politician can advocate for a just wage, banking regulations, environmental
protections, and universal healthcare. He can even say that abortion
restrictions are counterproductive. But because he believes everyone is a
“sinner” and that abortion is “wrong,” he is not welcome in the public forum.
Concepts like “sin” and “wrong” are transgressions to modernist liberalism.
A Muslim bowing
toward Mecca or a Hindu throwing dye during Holi or a Christian with ashes on
his forehead are acceptable. But non-Enlightenment philosophies that lead to
those rituals aren’t. Keep the look; drop the belief. For a believer, the truth is deeper than
public displays of cultural diversity. The rituals point to faith and the faith
is rooted in truth. How could someone be expected to reject the truth in favor
of hegemony? God is more important than human politics. Truth is more important
than human feelings.
The Muslim and Hindu
and Christian can fundamentally disagree on many things. And that may cause
problems. But they can also agree on many things and work together. Literacy,
feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, decent housing, decent wages. The
basics of society don’t require philosophical uniformity.
So maybe it is
unfair for America to slap “In God We Trust” on its courthouses and currency,
because not all Americans trust God or worship the same one. But not all
Americans are secularists either. Some are religious, the true kind of
religious where their faith shapes their values and politics, where it
permeates their daily lives. Religious liberty
means no state religion, including a state religion of “none.” It also means
that citizens are free to practice their faith and advocate for a society that
reflects their religiously-rooted values. We individuals can freely say in the
public forum that we place our trust in God.
No comments:
Post a Comment