It is not an accident that "God" does not appear in the Constitution. Following the American lead, religions, too, learned from the nonreligious improvements of modernity, but it is dishonest to claim after the fact that religions somehow sponsored them.
The paragraph is the third in this James Carroll op ed in today's Boston Globe, whose title is the same as this diary. It seems appropriate to write about this subject toda, espeially after mcjoan's wonder full front-page story yesterday, Book Review and Author Interview and Liveblogging: So Help Me God with minister an author the Rev. Forrest Church (which if you have not read you should).
Carroll sets the tone in the 1st sentence:
WHAT IN THE name of God is going on in American politics?
He chastises Mitt Romney, and "other presidential candidates, debate moderators, pundits, and religious leaders" for sharing
a dangerous confusion about questions of faith and citizenship.
Carroll lists those misconceptions, which when I quote I place in bold.
Is America's goodness grounded in God? Carroll argues that Jefferson's point in the Declaration was not to affirm God but to deny King George.
Carroll points out that it is no accident that God does not appear in the Constitution, and argues that it is dishonest of religions to claim sponsorship of the American ideal.
Were "the Founders" religious?Carroll reminds us the Pilgrims were a theocracy, and revisits some of the history so well explored yesterday by Church.
Is "secularism" dehumanizing? Here Carroll refers to Romney's condemnation of the "collapse" of religion in Europe as a condemnation of the "religion of secularism."
And it is here that Carroll makes what I think is his most cogent point. I firmly believe that most Americans, unfortunately not excluding Presidential candidates and the gatekeepers in the media, totally misunderstand the role of religion in most of Europe, perhaps because of the almost bellicose language of people like the current Pope. So let me ofer the complete paragraph in which Carroll discusses this and provides a contrast with the US:
Yet such American smugness seems to miss the largest point of difference between the Old World and the New. In the very years that majorities of Europeans were walking away from organized religion, they were resolutely turning away from government-sanctioned killing, whether through war or through the death penalty; they were leaving behind narrow notions of nationalism, mitigating state sovereignty, and, above all, replacing ancient hatreds with partnerships. All of this stands in stark contrast to the United States, where the most overtly religious people in the country support the death penalty, the government's hair-trigger readiness for war, and the gospel of national sovereignty that has made the United States an impediment to the United Nations.
Does God send people to hell if they vote wrong? This question occasions a challenge by Carroll, himself a former Catholic, to those bishops whose actions last election (and which were preceded by similar actions in 2004) occasioned much commentary. Carroll notes that an appeal to hellfire may well be an indication that those offering it have failed to make a compelling moral argument. That reasoning strongly reminds me of part of Robert Jackson's magnificent opinion in West Virginia v Barnette, when in ruling that participation in the Pledge ceremony could not be made mandatory he wrote
To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.
Carroll argues that the bishops make a mistake in their threats, particularly given the history of Catholicism, and states his view that
Religion aims not to "save" from an unmerciful God, but to reveal that God's mercy is complete.
Is Mormonism a religion of myth? Carroll notes that every religion is based on myth, and attempts to diffuse that particular criticism.
I acknowledge that there will be those, not necessarily follower of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, who will argue that their particular religion is not based on myth. I don't think that is necessarily relevant to the point Carroll is making. Perhaps what is of greater importance is what he sees as the respective roles of religion and politics, which he offers in his final paragraph:
Politics and religion, like art and music, aim to accomplish the same thing, which is to overcome absurdity with meaning. Religion does this by seeing God's hand in history. Politics does it by affirming that, if history is all there is, it is enough.
I acknowledge that not all will accept that final paragraph. But think about it at least momentarily. Many might accept the idea of attempting to overcome absurdity as applying to religion, to provide meaning for those things that seem to have no meaningful purpose. In fact, one reason some condemn religion is because they see precisely this attempt as a denial of the reality of the here and now.
And yet, whether overtly or not, many apply the same principles to politics. For every occasion I encounter either the fatalism of "it's God's will" or the determination to impose a religious vision because "it's God's word" or the equivalent, I note someone say of a political opponent that "he's evil" and of their own political approach that it may be the only way to save mankind from destruction.
Regular readers of my posts know that I am fond of Carroll's writing. I do not always agree with him, but find that what he writes challenges me intellectually. I often write about his columns because I believe they may also engender some more reflective thinking on the part of those who read what I post.
But to merely offer Carroll's words is insufficient. I have already offered what I see as a connection from what may be one of the most important Supreme Court opinions ever written. And now I will offer a few perhaps preliminary observations of my own. You are under no obligation to continue reading if you do not particularly care for my thoughts. The obligation is solely upon me, to attempt to explain myself.
I come to this topic with a firm belief in the maximum separation between religion and state. No doubt my by raised in a Jewish family was major part of this. So is my own adult experience in a variety of religious traditions, only one of which - the Episcopal Church - would be considered part of the majority or dominant religious tradition (although as an institution it is tiny and has bee constantly shrinking in membership to the point where Jews, Mormons and Muslims all outnumber Episcopalians). It is a subject I have studied for much of my life. And by choice I have, for most of my own adult life, chosen to be a participant in organized religion, a path I know is not shared by many readers of this site.
I am also a person who believes in political commitment. Certainly my continued presence at Daily Kos and other left blogs is one indication, as is my active participation in political campaigns.
My participation in religion is for me, as Carroll says, an attempt to give some meaning in a world beyond my capabilities of fully grasping. My participation in politics is because I want to provide positive meaning for the society and world in which I live.
I have never been evangelical in my religious wanderings, seeking to persuade others to my point of view. As a teacher I understand that constructing that level of meaning is something exceedingly personal, and while I might be willing to share, I do not wish to impose. If I happen to invite someone by my personal example, that is more than I might ever hope to expect. I see the search for meaning that is religious as personal, perhaps occurring in two communities, one a community of those who think similarly, the other the larger world in which we find ourselves. I include in my understanding of the impulse those who choose to live by a series of rational propositions which they assert are not a religion, which have no reference to a deity, which do not concern themselves with afterlife as a justification, which define a moral code by a basis other than what a deity or religious interpreters have decreed.
In attempting to provide positive meaning for society, I have inclinations, a general philosophy, but the needs of real humans always outweighs the purity of philosophy or ideology, at least for me. And I acknowledge that there are aspects of political participation that require compromise. I am willing to accept compromise when the issue is honest disagreement over how best to serve other people. I am unwilling to make compromises merely to obtain political position or advantage. The purpose of political power should be something well beyond personal or political self-aggrandizement or the ability to profit monetarily and in prestige.
The danger of too great an admixture of politics and religion is to begin to see one's political viewpoints as ordained by God. There is an understandable human desire for certainty, but that is not grounds for abandoning the responsibility of seeing the world as it is, even as we might dream of what could be. Our Founders did not seek a national religion, because the regional differences were so great they could not have agreed on one expression, even within the broader limits of Protestant Christianity. Besides, there were already too many resident here who could not be contained within such limits, who themselves had played a major role in helping create the nascent Republic the Founders were attempting to define. I think we are at great peril when we forget that part of our history.
I do not expect politicians to abandon their faith merely because they become politicians. I do expect them to recognize that if their sense of their faith conflicts with their public responsibilities under the Constitution they always have the choice to resign their public responsibilities. They do NOT have the option of violating their public responsibilities on behalf of their faith.
Nor should they seek to reinterpret our governing document to be more aligned with their own particular religious perspective. It is not possible to do that and still have the ideal of full participation in our civil society regardless of one's faith orientation - or "lack" thereof.
We are again in a period of our history where some are questioning the idea of separation. If is probably healthy that we periodically have discussion of the topic. Too often we forget why we have developed as we have. We are not only ignorant of European history, we are far too limited in the understanding of our own past. Thus I welcome Church's visit here yesterday, as I welcome Carroll's continued writings on the subject.
And I hope that this posting may in some way contribute to the discussion in a positive fashion.
Peace.