Defending God in the Public Square
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in ReligionIn a short editorial in Human Events former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, lays out the five challenges Americans must meet in order to win the future and preserve the greatness of our nation.
1) Confronting a world in which America’s enemies, including the irreconcilable wing of Islam and rogue dictatorships, could acquire and use nuclear or biological weapons
2) Defending God in the public square
3) Protecting America’s unique civilization
4)Competing in the global economy in an era of the economic rise of China and India, which will require transformations in litigation, education, taxation, regulation, and environmental, energy and health policies for America to continue to be the most successful economy in the world
5) Promoting active, healthy aging so more people can live longer, which will require dramatic transformation in pensions, Social Security and health care.
An interesting list. Number one and number four are undeniably vital. Number five is important. Number three can be easily misinterpreted as an anti-immigrant sentiment but, knowing Newt’s general worldview, I’m guessing that it’s actually a pro-freedom statement�making it worthy of the list too.
And number two is…well…controversial to say the least. Newt has never been a big player in the religious right, so it’s interesting that he’s placed “Defending God in the public square� as second only to confronting our enemies. Agree or disagree with Newt, he’s certainly one of our nation’s most engaged “big idea� men and isn’t one to waste a spot on such a list with a throwaway idea. Then again, Gingrich plays politics like the devil plays the fiddle�he knows religion is a powerful factor in the Republican’s dominance. He knows the value of keeping them on board.
But let’s pretend he’s not just pandering and really believes that “defending God in the public square� is vitally important to preserving our nation’s greatness. Why would he contend such a thing? Well, I think it’s because we as a nation have been turning increasingly secular over the last 50 years and are in danger of forgetting that the separation of church and state does not mean we must enforce a separation of church and public life.
Some people like to point to the rise of the Christian Right (better referred to as Christianists) and of false-issues like the “war on Christmas� as proof that we are living in a time of impending theocracy. But that’s just not the case. The Christian Right and their issues (real and invented) are a reaction to the realization that what we are living in is a time of impending hyper-secularism. And while I and many others (possibly Newt himself) regularly and even deeply disagree with the means and rhetoric of the Christianists, we are not particularly pleased with efforts of groups like the ACLU to wipe America clean of public displays of religion.
And before anyone accidentally or willfully misinterprets my position, I am not calling for the Ten Commandments to be posted in courthouses and creationism to be taught in our schools. What I seek is a nation where we as a people do not get offended when confronted with the religious beliefs and passions of those whose faith seems odd to us. Nor should we get offended when our own religious beliefs and passions are scorned and mocked by others.
When Gingrich says the future of our nation is reliant on “defending God in the public square� what I think he means is that freedom of religion, all religion, is one of the founding principles of this nation. In our zeal to keep church and state separate, we should be careful not to separate faith from our national character and public life. A man’s religion is not contained in his church or synagogue or mosque or temple�it’s part of his whole life. And America lets him live that religion. Even in the public square. Most importantly, in the public square.
I don’t think we’re in any danger of banishing religion, but I think we are in danger of forgetting its importance. That, I imagine, is Gingrich’s greater point. Although, with that man, you never quite know.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 25th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Interesting post, for the reasons you mention. I’m an agnostic who has defended religion’s place in the public square. but I wouldn’t have placed it in a top five list. As a plea for enlightened tolerance, though, it makes sense.
The swipe at the ACLU, though, is a bit gratuitous. They oppose government involvement in religion, but strongly support private groups and individuals who put religion in the public square. Here’s a long list of such cases.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
As another agnostic, I am not offended when people show their religious beliefs. I don’t go around torching churches or ripping down crucifixes from people’s homes. I do get offended when I am called un-American, or a traitor, or those Christianists try to write their religion into law.
I can understand that many people believe that religious faith is under attack in this country from the media; not agree with it, but understand it. However, it is the Christianists who seek to put their beliefs into law, not my fellow agnostics. Threats to the separation of church and state are going to continue to come from the religious, not the non-believers.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
we are not particularly pleased with efforts of groups like the ACLU to wipe America clean of public displays of religion.
I believe that the scope of these efforts is highly exaggerated. As Sean points out, the ACLU is often a friend to religious liberty cases.
Ed Brayton puts it best:
April 25th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
I think religion is pretty well protected in the public square. What we need is atheism protected in the public square.
BTW: You know in your heart he’s pandering.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
I should be so lucky as to live long enough to see us reach a state of “hyper-secularism” as that would be a good day indeed. The problem with this Administration and our government as a whole is that there’s not enough secularism. Our government was founded as a secular entity, but you wouldn’t know it by some of the stuff it engages in these days.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Sean,
The ACLU is an odd organization. They have indeed helped out a lot of relgious groups and yet they have often interpreted separation of church and state so broadly that they have gone after what I think are perfectly acceptable displays of religion. I stopped contributing about a year ago because I felt they had become too dogmatic on the issue.
But I’m no ACLU hater–which is probably why the remark didn’t seem gratuitous to me when I wrote it.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Set aside the silly 10-commandments monuments for a minute here, what religious principles are “Christianists” trying to write into law? As I see it, there are only two real political issues that define the moral divide between the religious and non-religious in america: Abortion and gay marraige. Am I wrong, is there another that I am missing?
Does the bible say, “thou shalt not commit abortion?” Does the constitution vow to uphold the inalienable rights to “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and marriage defined as the union of any two peoples regardless of gender?”
Why are abortion and gay marraige always framed as a blurring of church and state, when perfectly rational, secular arguments can be made to support the “Christianists” position? Who cares if most abortion aponents are religious. So were all the original women’s sufferage organizations and as well as MLK.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Les,
What negatives does religion bring to society that a hyper-secularism would cure?
And, since I will likley find myself mentioning it later, I will mention it now–some of the most brutal ideologies of the 20th century were secular.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
There is a reason Newt chose the word “defending” as opposed to “asserting”. I think SCOTUS in the next ten-years is going to pull the shade on the constitutional fiction (as propounded by the ACLU) of absolute church/state seperation. Alas, the secularist should take heart in knowing that the Culture seems to be at high-tide in terms of propagating commercial nothingness.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Jimmy,
You can use the same logic to show that there is absolutely no hostility to religion in the public square in America. If religion is not equivalent to anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage, then where is there evidence that religion is thwarted? You can pray anywhere, anytime you want. In school too. There are tricky cases out there, to be sure, when it comes to government displays of religious symbols. But as a Jew (and thus a religious minority), I am usually on the side of opposing the use of my tax dollars to advance another religion (or my religion). When the government starts forcing churches to shut their doors, or locks people up for praying, then we’ll have a real war against religion on our hands. There is probably no nation with freer religion than the United States, and the separation of church and state is precisely what allows for that freedom.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Alan,
The ACLU does occasionally follow a principle off of a cliff. But on balance I’m glad they’re around.
I’ve occasionally wondered if part of their problem is their structure, with dozens of independent state chapters. Much silliness, it seems to me, comes out of a handful of the chapters.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Jimmy,
Blue laws, mandating that all businesses be closed on Sundays.
Bans on dancing and other “immoral” behaviors.
Sodomy laws, as well as the selective enforcement of such laws.
Abortion I’ll grant you. But many of the same groups also argue against contraception.
As for the secular arguments against gay marriage, every debate I’ve ever been in eventually devolves to religion or bigotry, because it comes down to a belief that homosexuality is immoral. Barring evidence of actual intrinsic social harm, such a belief requires religious roots.
I respect that belief, but such belief is not by itself enough to justify legal discrimination.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
I agree with you Elrod. I don’t think religion is at risk of being undermined by our government, and thats because religion is still part of the backbone of our culture here. If we can put abortion and gay marraige on a seperate plane; for every school-district that bans Jesus rom the christmas pagaent, you will find a county that bans the sale of rubber dildos. I doubt one day you are going to wake up to find that you are not alowed to wear a crucifix or buy a dildo. Unless, of course, you are living in Shar’ia-ruled France 25 years from now.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Newt? Pandering? I’m shocked you would say such a thing… ;-)
Still, it doesn’t make his ideas any less intriguing. I especially like his guest worker idea that deposits a certain, non-trivial portion of their income they make here in a savings account that they can only claim if they go back to their own country. That is a brilliant idea.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Sean,
You know, you’re right about the local chapters of the ACLU causing most of the silliness. I too am glad they are around. I just feel my money is better spent elsewhere these days. I wonder if the ACLU has or would consider having a program that lets donors earmark their money to go to specific initiatives. I should look into that.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
I don’t get it.
Thousands of people have been martyred to practice the Christian faith. In millions of churches across this nation, pastors passionately exhort their flocks to make Christ the center of their lives, to take to heart and live by every word of the Bible. Eternity is at stake.
I’m not a believer. But if faith wanes, it won’t be the fault of the ACLU, or the five or ten percent of the people here who find displays of religion offensive. It won’t be because courts ban crosses on public property.
It will be because the believers lacked passion, lacked commitment, and their message lacked relevance.
I thought Christians were supposed to persevere in the face of obstacles. Instead they’re scared of their own shadow, and want to blame everyone but themselves for their failure to keep the message alive in their own community.
My message to Newt and all who agree with him: if you want Christianity to flourish, grow a goddamned spine and invigorate the churches from within, and stop being a bunch of whiners begging for the governement to make up for your deficiencies.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
The “Christianists” problem is not the lack of religion in the public square; it is the lack of THEIR religion in the public square. I’m sure if you allowed all religions equal access to the public square, the “Christianists” would be up in arms because “America is a Christian nation” or some such nonsense as that.
My problem with religion in the public square is the same one that has made separation of church and state so important; when the religion is associated (either implicitly or explicitly) with the goverment and thus is seen as the goverment giving its blessing to that religion over other religions.
The “Christianists” (I never used that term before but I’m starting to like it) seem to forget that many of the religious people who came to America to escape persecution were being persecuted by other Christians. And I fear that that is what is happening today; the “Christianists” are not just persecuting non-Christian religions but also Christians who are alarmed by their words and their actions (I happen to be one of those alarmed Christians).
April 25th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
#2 is pandering. This is the same Newt that walked out on his cancer stricken wife to be with a younger woman and later had to be taken to court because he wasn’t paying child support. (Check the atlanta journal – constitution archives) He’s not exactly a model Christian.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:30 am
I think that this topic (#2) is one that requires considerable thought. Alan has hit on something where Newt is concerned (ref: pandering?) and that accusation by some of the respondants would be justified based on prior history. However, I think that Newt (very astutely) was attempting to create an environment for dialog on a difficult topic, and by the responses here I would say he succeeded.
There are many excellent points raised and belifs professed (or not) in these responses and that is a good thing. Aside from the polarized opinions (based in “that’s not what I was taught” mentalities) this is one of the best posts I have seen in terms of reasonable discourse on a discordant issue(?).
I find it interesting that the post was informative about (5) important items and almost all of the responses have been in regard to #2. Newt hit the Motherlode on emotion(which he has always been good at doing.
I have never been a Newt fan, but I have always had emmemse resoect for his intellect. I would now offer my thoughts regarding his intent and my opinion(s)
1. Does the ACLU go over the top? Absolutely
2. Is the ACLU a vital entity to our culture and Government? Absolutely
3. Do the Christianists (hate the term) go over the top? Absolutely
4. Do the Agnostics and Athiests go over the top? Absolutely
Freedom to practice (or not) religion SHOULD mean exactly that and nothing more. It has no place as the basis for writing law (as demonstrated by the few religious right whakos who attempted to impose their religious convictions on the legal system relative to Shaivo. In short, they gave us a demonstration of the difference between “practice” and “imposition”.
There is nothing wrong with symbology. Christians founded this country to escape the secularity of other Christians. Their original inclusion of symbology in governance is historical and there never was a reason for Athisests to demand that they remove that symbology.
Anyone who is derailed by someone else’s celebration of belief (or non-belief) is weak of conviction and demonstrates that weakness by attempting to impose their alleged rights on others. They need to get a life, so to speak.
The ACLU has structural issues that contribute to their bi-polar application of the laws, but that is minor in scope when you consider a landscape without watchdog status.
I think that all symbology could be integrated into the American landscape to be inclusive of the diversity of religious beliefs ;)
1. Courthouse facades could include the Ten Commandments for the Christians, a little fat guy for the Bhuddists, a question mark for the Agnostics, and a great big Uh-Uh for the Athiests …. everyone gets a symbol.
2. A statue of Newt could be installed on the lawn with a #2 sculpture in close proximity.
Sorry for the humor, but we as a culture seem to bend and twist in the winds on this religion thing, which is what I think the founding fathers envisioned. It is nothing to get excited about. When one faction imposes, the other balks … democracy in action.
More importantly, and I saw no reference to it here, is how we present the American face to the rest of the world. We are a country that professes freedom. We are true believers in democracy as OUR form of government. We are IMPOSING that belief in other parts of the world. We should be leaving that decision to the those folks. Religious zealots and terrorists who TRY to impose their beliefs on us through violent acts should be responded to in strong fashion, not invited into the democratic fold. Democracy is homegrown …. created by those who CHOOSE it. Democracy is not, nor will it ever be, a deliverable product to another land, which is the reason that individuals all over the world choose to come HERE.
Perhaps Newt should have ad a #6 in his talking points list.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:41 am
I agree to a certain extent, however the “war on Christmas” catch phrases are overstated. I do think that the far left’s aversion to anything spiritual is a detriment to the Democratic party; at the same time, church and state should be separate. As in: people’s private displays are perfectly acceptable, but posting the 10 commandments in a Courthouse is not. Teaching theology or Bible classes as an elective is questionable but should not be summarily discharged; as a required course, clearly, it would be over the line.
This also comes from the creationism vs. evolution argument–one spot where Christians go over the line here is the idea that we need a ‘Creation Museum’ where nothing is shown to be more than 4,000 years old is insane. Intelligent Design, as a concept, is perfectly acceptable and reaction to it is overdone–it’s an opinion, and should be taught from both sides. As in–some say ‘ID’ explains the universe, others aren’t sure or believe it to be simply random events evolved from the Big Bang. No harm done on either side.
Total averison to spirituality is a way for the far left to further remove itself from the mainstream of American politics.
April 26th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Intelligent Design, as a concept, is perfectly acceptable and reaction to it is overdone–it’s an opinion, and should be taught from both sides. As in–some say ‘ID’ explains the universe, others aren’t sure or believe it to be simply random events evolved from the Big Bang. No harm done on either side.
Actually, if you look at the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Document,” you will see that ID is more than an opinion — it’s the first step in a plan to replace naturalistic science with a different, religiously-driven “science” by people who believe that, Christianity is under assault by naturalistic models of the universe.
That aside, where does this “teach the controversy” approach stop, though? ID is about as popular among biologists as Holocaust revisionism is among historians. Will we see a time where children are taught:
“Some say that the belief that Nazis killed six million Jews during their reign is a fabrication, others disagree.”
April 26th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Jimmy: To further answer your original question, you can also add stem-cell research and legalized gambling (particularly over the Internet) to the list of “moral divide” issues.
It should also be noted that all Christianists are not created equal. As I’ve pointed out before, most Christianists at least pay lip service to working within the framework of the Constitution (which is why comparing most Christianists to Islamic supremacists is silly), but only a small subset of Christianists, the so-called Reconstructionists, expressly advocate a social order based entirely upon Biblical law.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Jimmy,
Can you explain to me what the non-religious arguments are for abortion and gay marriage? If they really exist, I have yet to hear one, and remember, the argument cannot invovle any type of morality or religious argument of any king.
In general: I am an agnostic, but I support the freedom of religion. The problem I have noticed is that it is Christians or “Christianists” that are always making the noise, with Muslims starting to come in at a close second. You hear things from the Catholics, the Jews, and various other groups, but it’s mostly Christianity that is always in the news, and it is traditional Judeo-Christian values that saturate our society and are starting to saturate our government. That is annoying, if not dangerous.
Not only does it offend me because I do not share those beliefs, it offends me that others who belong to different religious groups have to put up with it as well, as if Christianity has a corner on the market, and their religions don’t matter. I have friends of various faiths who feel that unless they start making a scene, they will be ignored, and Christian beliefs and values will be thrust upon them, and they, being the type of mature adults who do not wish to make a scene, believe this to be unfair. I agree, and that is why separation of church and state is so important.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:10 pm
creation is right. evoulution is wrong. God created the universe. to prove that evoulution is wrong i will use an example. say for instance you have a string. over time, does the string become more advanced(cleaner, tighter) or does it begin to unravel and become wethered? things go in a downward spiral, not becoming more and more advanced. evoulution suggests differently. things became more and more complex. evoulution is ridiculous. give me proof otherwise you dumb evoulutionists! eleventy billion years never happened! Just try to prove me wrong, ill be checking back on this site.
plz comment, or is this too good for you evoulution scientists guys. hehehe…