The American invasion of Iraq in 2003, and its subsequent occupation until late 2011, served as a major catalyst for a breakdown of that social order (such as it was, tightly controlled but presided over by a lawless regime). Within weeks of the fall of Hussein’s government, the policy of de-Baathification served to clear the country of virtually all leadership but its traditional tribal and religious framework. In the meantime, the proliferation of Shi’ite and Sunni militias combined with an influx of foreign mujahideen, a widespread atmosphere of anarchy, and a devastated economy to create an unpredictable and violent atmosphere throughout the country. That violent setting affected all Iraqis, of course, and it was particularly hostile to any perceived “other” in their midst—including Christians, whom many extremists labeled as natural collaborators with the American “Crusaders.”
freedom of religion
And now American Catholics and the rest of the country know that the real agenda of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is to stop any government health care mandate. This is sad and ironic because the Catholic Church has historically been a strong advocate of health care access for those who need it. Worse, the conference is specifically demanding an exemption for any employer who would have a “conscience” problem with providing contraceptive coverage for employees. In other words, in the name of “religious liberty,” these bishops want to force their religious belief on employees who do not share their belief. Not only is this effort turning religious liberty on its head, but it ignores the reality that affordable health care, including contraception, is the most effective way to significantly reduce abortion.
(via slacktivist)
This is quite different from the implausible scenario that Santorum conjures up of liberals barring the devout from holding office or from so much as mentioning their beliefs. Yet since the political mobilization of the religious right in the late 1970s, it has become increasingly common to hear charges that religion is somehow under threat—that Kennedy and his liberal heirs would create a country where, as Santorum said, “faith is not allowed in the public square” (or, as Romney put it, that they would seek “the elimination of religion from the public square”).
The vagueness of the recurrent phrase “the public square” in these Republican talking points reveals some of the problems with their arguments. Liberals—and a half-century of Supreme Court jurisprudence—do of course support the idea that the Constitution forbids government from subsidizing or privileging religion. But is there really anyone out there who contends that politicians can’t be religious or should never talk about God? “I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith,” Kennedy said in his speech, “nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.” Clearly, Kennedy didn’t think presidents had to be atheists.
There is one candidate for president this year who understands why Kennedy’s secular vision allows religion to thrive in America without unconstitutionally offering religious views government endorsement: Barack Obama. “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values,” he said in 2006, in his own Kennedy-style speech on church and state. “It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
I think most Christians would agree that there is a vast and unbridgeable chasm between a deistic civil religion and orthodox Christianity. But the civil religion that our fellow citizens embrace is not the type Rousseau had in mind. It is very much a view that is rooted in the concept that America is a Christian nation (or at least a Judeo-Christian nation). For them, the “In God We Trust” on our coins might as well say “In Jesus We Trust.” The State is not only subordinate to the one true Sovereign (and don’t let the capitalized noun fool you—we’re still talking about Jesus here) but is expected to conform to his standards. Although this view can lead people to use Christianity to promote Americanism, more often it simply leads to criticism of the nation’s flaws. The fact that the country continually falls short of God’s standards is a constant annoyance for those who believe that the founding documents were wholly derived—at least in principle—from the Holy Scriptures. (Think I’m exaggerating? Talk to some of these folks and see if you don’t get the impression that they think the Constitution was inspired more by the Gospel of John than by John Locke.) Those of us who champion a role for religion in the public square, however, cannot fully embrace this Christianized concept of civil religion. If we claim, as our friends and neighbors believe, that “under God” refers only to the Christian conception of God then we are either being unduly intolerant or, more likely, simply kidding ourselves. Do we truly think that our fellow Hindu, Wiccan, or Buddhist patriots are claiming to be under the same deity as we are? We can’t claim, as the Apostle Paul did on Mars Hill, that the “unknown god” they are worshiping is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Pledge is, after all, a secular document and the “under god” is referring to the Divinity of our country’s civil religion. Just as the pagan religion of the Roman Empire was able to incorporate other gods and give them familiar names, the civil religion provides an umbrella for all beliefs to submit under one nondescript, fill-in-the-blank term. Joe Carter ☀
The agenda for the House of Representatives contains a bill, recently reported out of the Judiciary Committee, that asks our elected officials to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as our national motto. News reports indicate the bill’s supporters appear particularly keen on having public school classrooms display the motto, so that children can spend their days gazing upon it.
Granted, “In God We Trust” has a long public record, dating back to 1864, when the government first started engraving it on our coinage. It became the national motto when Congress voted it as such in 1956. Think those two years might have shared anything? In each case, the nation perceived itself in a life-or-death struggle — the Civil War in the first instance, the Cold War in the second. And given that the principal enemy the second time around was the Soviet Union, the idea of adopting “In God We Trust” as our national motto must have seemed a pretty clear way to distinguish Americans from the godless Commies in Moscow.
An obvious question to ask is why our public servants think now would be a good time to throw the spotlight back on the motto? To be sure, we’re again at war and have very recently enlarged the field of battle to include Libya.
But a more pertinent question — and an enduring one for the country — is, who is this God in whom we are called to place our trust? (I’m not talking about religious pluralism here, the important theological differences among the believing population, whose members call themselves Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc.)
A GNT creation ©2007–2013
