Tuesday, August 10, 2004

A Wall of Separation


We’re all aware of this memorable phrase by Thomas Jefferson. We hear it repeatedly from the ACLU and other opponents of Church “interference” in state matters. Although the words “separation of church and state” never appear in the first amendment, they might as well be there now. So engrained is this idea on our national conscience that even the pledge of allegiance has come under attack, in addition, prayer at high school football games and within the classroom. Religion, in a certain sense has become enemy number one of activist judges. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to state that religion has come under attack in America. Even though the majority of Americans consider themselves religious, the elite of this country, once again proving that they know better than we do, are attempting to erase the important role religion played in our nation’s founding. Quote after quote can be pulled from the dialogues of the founding era affirming the benefits, even necessity, of religion and morality in public life. Washington himself went so far in his Farewell Address to say that these two pillars are fundamental components of a successful republic. Even Jefferson, probably the least “religious” of the founding generation, doubted that a state could function without Christianity. De Tocqueville marveled at the religiosity of the American citizen. Not being able to deny the prominent role religion occupied in the founding, attempts are now being made to dismiss religion in the founding era as “cultural” or “historical” conditioning. “That was then, this is now.”

The idea that religious-inspired values and morals ought to remain outside the public debate would have sounded completely foreign to the founders. While they affirmed reason’s ability to reach certain truths, they were doubtful that over time, reason alone would prove sufficient in guiding man along the path of moral truth. As we all know, the only intent of the first amendment was to prohibit Congress from establishing a national religion and to ensure the freedom to worship as one pleases. Today however, we have what Father Neuhaus calls the “naked public square.” President Bush is accused of being a zealot, leading this country on his religious convictions rather than national interest. The courts, which were intended by the founders to be the weakest branch of government, have arguably become the most powerful.

As we have discussed, politicians opposed to abortion are accused of “imposing” their religion on the electorate. Bishops who speak out against abortion and warn politicians who support it are likewise criticized. The important social issues of the day such as life, marriage and the family, etc., are influenced more by the secular creed than any religious one. What is the remedy for such hostility toward religion in public life? How can we reclaim our nation’s appreciation for religion in the public square?

2 comments:

  1. Allow me to attempt a Maldonadoesque argument to assay these issues.

    Perhaps the mentality of the hoi polloi is not so far from that of the founder's. Maybe the generation currently rising in influence will choose to repair the issues you raise.

    After all, current politicians, CEO's, members of the supreme court, and all other individuals who are directly affecting the aura of the nation are from the 60's generation. It will require no abracadabra, simply an educated generation that wants to provide their children with the things that they lacked-- traditional family life for instance.

    The media and a few boisterous activists funded by wealthy people that have much less sense than stock options will defend their pet issues a outrance; but in the end I feel that their efforts will be otiose--take a look at the recent California decision. I believe I read that 52 out of 58 districts voted in favor of defending marriage, and this included all metropolitan areas except San Francisco.

    So Christian values are definitely lagging, but religion has not been lost in the public square. They play a minimal role, and some would like to see such things eliminated, but they will(are) failing.

    Do you think that the people who praised Pat Tillman support radical secularization? They say a few rotten apples spoil the whole bunch, but I think the US will pull out of this yet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Once again, our problem seems to be centered around the unfortunate fact that those in positions of power and authority have the funding and influence to graft their ideology upon America. Although these individuals constitute a minority, through their Oz-like self-magnification they look far more powerful and numerous than reality unveils them be. On the other hand, the vast majority of Americans, who value religion and morality, are outclassed in the PR campaign and are often powerless to oppose the entertainment industry, liberal activist judges and the "mainstream" media.

    ReplyDelete