Nuance is not a Vice
Friday, December 10, 2004
 
Separation of churchgoers and state?

While reading one of my friend's sociology papers, he made a point which seemed to have deep implications. Citing a well-known sociologist, he said that many of the seeming inconsistencies in American jurisprudence (as compared to other Western nations, e.g.) can be chalked up to a public with religious views creating policy in a state that doesn't allow religion to be a determinant. In other words, and this is moving onto my own arguments, if the bulk of policymakers -- and the people who vote for them -- have a set of religiously-based principles and you're then asking them to operate in a religion-less vacuum, you're going to have clashes.

Separation of church and state is a misnomer, because it assumes that religion and all of its vestments are contained in the institutions of religion. It assumes that by saying "Congress shall make no act respecting the establishment of religion," we are taking religion out of the "secular" realm altogether. Upon reflection, however, this is clearly not the case.

If the secular arena is populated by persons of faith, it's not so very secular, now is it? Put another way, is it so unbelievable that many Americans support the death penalty considering how infused most are with Puritan/Protestant values? No one is arguing that we should have a death penalty because the offenders are sinners and the Old Testament preaches an eye for an eye, but that does seem to underline the frameworks of thought. We are the product of our values and ideals, and they infuse every position we take. We cannot simply leave our ideological underpinnings at the door marked by a placard of "Secularism." Nor, necessarily, should we.

I'm certainly not advocating a breakdown of the wall between church and state -- instead, I'm arguing that the supposed wall is largely an illusion. In search of a truly secular nation, you would need to impose a separation of churchgoers and state, which would involve alienating about 90% of the population. Instead, I think it's very important that we realize the true nature of affairs, because it elucidates so many contemporary debates.

The most obvious example of this (not to harp on the Christians, for no doubt equivalent comments hold true for other religions) is the absolutist worldview put forth by most church dogma. Much of that worldview -- and I'm about to make gross generalizations -- is couched in dualistic terms; sinners and non-sinners, heaven and hell, holy and unholy. Bringing such a black-and-white perspective to the "secular" policy arena certainly helps explain how such seemingly draconian measures as mandatory minimums or the juvenile death penalty have persisted into the 21st century. The justice system is the simplest place to see this at work, but similar influences informs every aspect of public policy.

My liberal friends (and I'm guilty of this too) often wring their hands and shout in exasperation, "how can they believe that?" But while it's simple to winnow out the religion-arguments on an issue like gay marriage, there isn't widespread acknowledgement of how deeply religious principles swirl in every eddy of our national debates.

This isn't one of those posts which is putting forth a call for action, but rather one which is thinking out loud. We might understand each other a lot better if we didn't make pretenses about what we're bringing to the table.

-Elliot

Comments:
The main point of American jurisprudence, and the liberal origins of the American Constitution, lie in an assertion (more or less) of Moral Relativism as a truth. The basis for many modern legal decisions, from both "sides" of the Supreme Court (Scalia as opposed to Ginsberg, etc.) is mired in the philosophy of the individual of the enlightenment- but most heavily on Kant's depiction if the individual as an "Unencumbered self". The reason Church and State must be separated is because no person in an ideal government system should be coerced in any way to any sort of moral belief structure that he/she did not freely choose. It's the fundamental strength of "Political Emancipation", but given the implications of what an actual implementation of that would imply, it is also the fundamental flaw of the system.

Marx writes a good critique of the idea in "On the Jewish Question", and for a more 20th-century perspective, Aron's "The Opium of the Intellectuals" is good reading.

Speaking pragmatically, the reasons why people think the separation is a bad idea are valid human reasons, but the solutions have no place in the federal government- however, supporting the type of ends that they support given different means should be the type of solution offered by those not trying to jam hard-line christian values down everyone else's throats- but given the fact that the issue would have to be expressed in a fairly nuanced fashion in order for the public to understand that, the politicians who do NOT fall into the conservative christian side of the issue have to tacitly accept it by evading all questions on the subject. Kinda hard to motivate your base when your stance on fundamental moral issues is muddy, at best.

More thoughts, but this comment is getting too long as is.

-Alton.
 
Karen:

I certainly would never suggest that there aren't people for (or against) ANY issue that tends to be religiously-influenced who aren't religious. However, I would submit that if we did a simple breakdown of people who are for the death penalty by regularity of church attendance (or even a self-declared "religiosity"), we'd probably see a strong correlation between the two. In other words, I think that the examples you name -- you re: death penalty and Grant re: gay marriage -- are representative of exceptions, not the rule.

You suggest that I'm overestimating the influence of religion, and that may be true, but I think you're underestimating it. Religion as a socializing factor can be INCREDIBLY powerful, the primary influence on some people's worldviews and a strong one on many others. Now, whether religion is simply a manifestation of more basic instincts (needing to be able to understand death, e.g.) is another matter altogether, and I think one which is less important to this discussion, though fascinating.

The point I'm making is that there is a basic disconnect between our obstensibly secular society and a great number of that society's membership holding a non-secular worldview. I understand entirely why separation of church and state exists, as Alton summarized, but I think it hinders our ability to have a successful discourse if we willingly try to ignore the deep-seeded influences of religion.

You posit that if there were no religious people in society, we'd still have a death penalty. I disagree, and I disagree by pointing at Europe, a region largely devoid of overwhelming religion (certainly compared to the U.S.), and a region largely devoid of the death penalty.

I'm glad you problematized my argument, because certainly I was speaking in broad generalizations. I think, though, that when you break it below the surface, you still see the principles I'm suggesting at work.
 
I'm afraid that, deep down, you are all three ignoring or dismissing the fact that some people are Democratic because of their religious beliefs, not in spite of them. Likewise, I know several Republicans who are members of the GOP specifically because they reject the social justice aspects of Christianity et al. (They tend to read a lot of Ayn Rand.) I realize this is an unpopular position in Democratic circles, but I'm a card-carrying member because I believe- and back it up with Scripture, if need be- that the point of organized community is to enact justice insofar as possible. After just a cursory reading of Deuteronomy, the Gospel of Luke, and the Letter of St. James, it is clear that human institutions can only legitimately exist when they aid those who are marginalized by the larger society's logic of proto-utilitarianism. This type of Biblical political view leads to some rather unusual stances, at least according to the logic of our Red State-Blue State mentality. (Dr. Seuss would be proud.)

To take on one specific issue, I object to the death penalty not because I necessarily oppose a state's right to kill. I oppose it because it is manifestly unfair to marginalized groups, especially the poor, and results in wrongful executions. If it was used to end the lives of rich whites who killed poor blacks as often as it is used against poor blacks who attacked rich whites, I'd be much better disposed to it. (Yes, I'm aware that would open up numerous business executives to serious prosecution.) Moreover, if it was used against rapists (as is dictated in Scripture), I would also be more likely to support it. So, I suppose, I mainly object to the death penalty because it is not used enough.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Listed on Blogwise