Articles

SECULARIZING FAITH IN THE UNITED STATES

by Bishop Paul Peter Jesep

Does the Creator prefer citizens of faith on the ideological left, centre, or right? It is a heated debate now playing out in the United States. Forgotten is President Abraham Lincoln's wisdom that we must all be on God's side. An increasing number of people believe that the Almighty loves some more than others. America needs a balance where faith can play a role without becoming a political tool that marginalizes God with false-reverence.

     The secularization of faith in American society seems more fueled by the God-fearing than atheists, agnostics, or pagan liberals. The separation of church and state, a judicial guideline used in a country that permits "In God We Trust" on its coinage, may soon serve an unintended purpose. Now thought by some as a means to drum out God from government and public schools, the separation of church and state may be the only way to maintain national respect for the Creator.

     Usually when a close relationship is established between religion and politics (government) the end result is disastrous. Government is an institution that comprises a cross-section of the bad and good in society. Its legislative process is a pragmatic mechanism that seeks consensus fueled by deal making. It is an amoral, and sometimes corrupt, unethical institution never intended to advance the sacred, because of its temporal nature managed or manipulated by flawed individuals frequently driven by personal agendas who achieve power through the political process.

     Hence, injecting faith, religion or spirituality into politics or government frequently compromises the individuals and organizations intended to further Christian values. Religious groups and persons of faith can become vulnerable to secular manipulations where the sacred becomes just another tool to achieve a political or legislative goal.

     Political and government history throughout the world show the dangers of imprudently mixing faith with the secular. In the 2000 Republican presidential primaries, U.S. Senator John McCain of Arizona confronted the politics of personal destruction by self-described Christians in the South who were adamant that then Governor George W. Bush of Texas had the strongest relationship with the Creator. McCain suffered numerous personal attacks all in the name of God. The political process has never been one where morality ruled the day.

     As another example, the Russian Revolution came about, in part, due to the corruption and complicity of the Orthodox Church in furthering the greed and incompetence of the monarchy. The embrace of atheism had less to do with the beliefs of Karl Marx than the betrayal many felt by those who held themselves out to be God's representatives on earth. The Orthodox Church, as an institution, often turned a blind eye to the people's suffering.

     Even today, the Russian Orthodox Church is attempting to subvert God to its will. Zeyno Baran and Emmet Tuohy co-authored "An Unorthodox Orthodoxy" for the conservative National Review, noting the authoritarian complicity of Russian Orthodoxy in the increasingly repressive policies of Vladimir Putin. Once again, religion and government are in a devilish union.

     Fr. David Gallo, Chaplain/Assistant Professor of History and Department Chair at the College of Mount Saint Vincent in Riverdale, New York, observed that in the events leading up to the French Revolution, "The church played its part, too, in trying to manipulate the monarchy to protect it and its interests . . ."

     He added, "I think that the process of 'desacralization' was well underway by 1789, through the incisive wit of Voltaire and other deists, emptying the sacred content previously characterizing and buttressing the monarchy . . . This exacerbated the progression from exasperation, to cynicism and ultimately to desperation and rejection felt by ordinary Frenchmen. That the church was so closely allied to the monarchy, and enmeshed in the 1,200-year-old web of privilege and wealth, meant that it suffered the same fate."

     Of course America is a long way off from going down this road, yet the willingness of some and the complacency of the citizenry in general perverts both faith and democratic institutions. School prayer, reproductive rights, teaching Creationism in public schools, displaying the Ten Commandments and the recent Terri Schiavo case regarding the right to die are among the contentious issues that have brought the values debate to a boiling point.

     This is not to suggest that faith shouldn't play a role in a nation's life. Politics and government, however, should not be used to advance a religious agenda of vocal constituent groups. To do so creates an incestuous affair that undermines government while calling into question all that a society holds to be spiritually sacred.

     Distributors of adult pornography contribute to the Democratic and Republican parties. In April, a bi-partisan bankruptcy overhaul bill was passed making it extraordinarily difficult to wipe out debt due to illness, job loss, or even after forgoing a high salary to serve in the military. Legalized usury has become further entrenched because the banking industry buys access and influence to Congress. Why would a religious group want to be closely affiliated with either party? Yet some Catholic and Southern evangelical leaders have all but said to their respective congregations that good Christians vote Republican.

     Prior to the November 2004 presidential election, Rev. Pat Robertson said God had told him that President George W. Bush would be re-elected by a landslide. If Robertson actually had the privilege to talk with God in such a clear manner then why not ask about finding a cure for cancer or solving the homeless problem? Instead, God revealed himself as a political pundit.

     Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, a former Democratic presidential candidate, made it known that Job was his favourite book from the "New Testament." Oops. Now as Democratic National Chairman he's still positioning his party to talk more openly about faith and values. U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, has been offering her views on faith as well. In each case it seems like a forced dialogue of gamesmanship.

     Conservative radio talk show entertainer Rush Limbaugh, who Ronald Reagan said was the voice of the ideological movement, recently blasted liberals for their concerns about the new Pope. Limbaugh has played a key role in marshalling an ideological movement that assisted the Republican Party in taking control of Congress and the White House. Yet his contributions to the values debate strains credibility. He is preparing for his third divorce.

     Last month, Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued a report which found, according to the Los Angeles Times, "incidents of mandatory prayers, proselytizing by teachers, insensitivity to religious minorities and allegations that evangelical Christianity is the preferred faith" at the U.S. Air Force Academy. According to the Times, "There have been 55 complaints of religious insensitivity over the past four years, often made by cadets who feel evangelical Christians dominate the institution."

     Several years ago, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, before becoming Pope Benedict XVI, said that other Christian faiths were "deficient." Imagine the uproar from Protestant evangelicals if a Catholic instructor had quoted him at the Academy? The trend to infuse too much religion or theology into certain institutions fuels denominational vanity and diminishes the community Christ sought to nurture.

     Ultimately, Christians need not fear agnostics or humanists; they should fear the secularizing intimidation of one another. If Christians aren't careful they may end up waging a political holy war against themselves.

     The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule when and where the Ten Commandments can be displayed in a government building. I would be surprised if the Court decided that such displays violated the separation of church and state. In making its ruling, however, the Court is likely to provide that such displays stem from tradition and historic precedent. Hence, the Court by permitting the display will use a form of secularism in reaching its decision. The living God will become an historic relic.

     Support for school prayer is another example how some are secularizing God. Why is government interference needed? Are parents incapable of teaching children to say a silent prayer before class or at lunchtime? Is the Creator to be summoned at a designated time the way a person turns on a light switch?

     We should remember the lessons in The Way of a Pilgrim: "Ceaseless prayer is to call upon the Name of God always, whether a man is conversing, or sitting down, or walking, or making something, or eating, whatever he may be doing, in all places and at all times, he ought to call upon God's name." God doesn't need the help of government to guarantee that the faithful engage in prayer. They already have that power.

     The most immediate battle is over judicial nominees to the nation's federal court system. Many evangelical Christians believe that the Democratic minority in the U.S. Senate is attempting to "filibuster against people of faith." Although 95 percent of President Bush's nominees have been successful, Democrats are threatening to use a procedural filibuster rule to hold up candidates they fear will legislate from the bench in a Christian fundamentalist manner. Evangelicals are calling for a Senatorial vote to repeal the filibuster.

     Recently, one of President Bush's judicial nominees spoke before a gathering of Catholic legal professionals. Bishop William E. Lori commented afterward that: "She caused all of us to reflect more profoundly on the intersection between law and morality, and on the role of religion in shaping those virtues and values, which are crucial to our democratic way of life."

     There is a significant difference between secular and moral law. Although the two sometimes overlap they must not be mixed together where each loses their respective identity. Secular law is based on economics and an orderly society. Moral law is Divinely based and should not be compromised by the inherently temporal, artificial nature of secular law.

     Secular society has passed laws well before the birth of Christ to punish crime because allowing such conduct undermines economic growth and security. Early civil society passed marriage laws that had more to do with illegitimate children becoming wards of the state than the institution's sanctity. Reservations about a handful of President Bush's judicial nominees are not because they are religious, but that they'd be inclined to interject their religious perspective when interpreting secular law. Suppose one of these nominees subscribes to Cardinal Ratzinger's belief that other Christian faiths are "deficient?" Would he or she have the judicial temperament to fairly interpret the law?

     U.S. Senator and Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism and the man most responsible for laying the groundwork for Ronald Reagan's rise to power reflected in September 1981: "[On] religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this Supreme Being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly."

     Goldwater added, "The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"

     The secularization of God by persons of all ideological perspectives pits people of faith against one another, eliminates the faith neutrality of public policy, and affirms the concerns of those who are already suspicious about religion. The Creator is secularized when government interferes with a person's unique relationship with God. In addition, if government isn't trustworthy with tax dollars, why would anyone think it should be used to protect or advance that which is sacred? Renewing a commitment to the separation of church and state may be the only way to have a reverent, respectful place for God in America's national civic life.

Bishop Paul Peter Jesep is Chancellor of the Archeparchy, Episcopal Vicar of South America and Syncellus of Government Relations and Public Affairs for the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church of North and South America. His Excellency is also a lawyer, was a legislative analyst to U.S. Senator Susan Collins, taught the Legislative Process at Boston University and has studied at Bangor Theological Seminary. The views expressed here are strictly personal.