This is a topic to which I have given a good bit of thought over a period of time. However, what triggered me to sit down and write about it on a Sunday morning was a diary that was posted last night.
Against Same-Sex Marriage: Can this community be civil to Catholics on the left?
This is the second attempt by the diarist to organize what he thinks should be an open debate on the issue of marriage equality. The first diary got him a timeout. The second one seems to have made it past the bots, even though there 20 HRs in the tip jar. At any rate the community of Daily Kos is making it very clear to him that on this site that issue is simply not open to debate. What I want to discuss here is the assumption that by invoking his status as a practicing Catholic he becomes entitled to have his views treated with civility and respect. In my view this is an attempt to demand a privileged status for Christianity in general and for the Catholic Church in particular.
The first amendment to the US constitution states that Congress shall make no establishment of religion. The traditional interpretation of that has been that people have a civil right to make personal choices about religious practice including refraining from it without government interference. That is really all they get as a matter of civil right. Historically Christianity as the overwhelmingly dominant religion in American society managed to get a social standing beyond that basic civil right. Up until the 1950s there was a general presumption that reasonable polite people would have some form of religion. The money says In God We Trust and the pledge to the flag includes under God. The laws on personal behavior have been heavily intertwined with traditional Judeo-Christian moral teachings.
The idea of a predominantly secular democratic society in which traditional religious institutions are experiencing a long term decline in their status and influence is something that only began to gain sway in the 20th C. Social structures have generally evolved out of tribal cultures in which there was no clear distinction between civil and religious authority. US culture traces much of its heritage back to medieval Europe which was characterized by thoroughly theocratic states. We are in a process of historical transition and there is not a broad and general consensus on just what the role of traditional religious institutions should be in civil society.
Like many other people of a progressive bent, I have strong views on such issues as women's right to reproductive choice, LGBT rights and protection of people from sexual assault. These are all matters of law and policy and as such they impact the lives of all people regardless of their religious views. They are also matters on which people form personal views that may or may not be influenced by religious teachings. There is a political position called social conservatism that advocates the retention of historical legal structures that restrict and constrain personal choice in these areas. There is a definite correlation between people holding such political views and membership in certain religious organizations. The three with the most visible political profile are the Catholic, Southern Baptist and LDS churches. The problem arises with their role in attempting to influence politics and policy as religious organizations and not just as individual citizens with particular political views.
There are various issues that arise from this conflict such as tax exempt status and political activity. The one that I want to address here is people telling me that I have some kind of obligation to treat religious people and their views with respect. I am in fundamental disagreement with that position. There are issues of theological debate that are basically internal to religious traditions. They would include things like the doctrines of transubstantiation and and original sin. I have no interest in such matters and don't wish to spend time arguing with people about them. I accord those matters indifference rather than active respect. However, when religious groups are trying to impose their views on the general public through the political process, it seems highly unreasonable to me for them to be demanding to be treated with respect. It is equivalent to demanding that I treat the Tea Party with respect.
Since these organizations attempt to use their historical position of privilege for political leverage, it becomes impossible to simply sidestep the matter and focus exclusively on specific political issues. They insist on trying to use the authority of religious beliefs as justification for their political positions. There is no reason that a person who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs should defer to that in any way. Rejecting such positions is not a matter of arguing about religion, it is a matter of keeping religion and politics separate.