By John Ballard
Fred Clark spells out the meaning of Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state.
I happen to like the idea of a day of prayer, and of a nationwide day of prayer. But I'm utterly opposed to the idea that such a day of prayer ought to be nationalized. Once the thing becomes nationalized and official and established it becomes another thing entirely. Prayer is not something to be rendered unto Caesar, nor is it something Caesar ought to be put in charge of, asked to bless, permit, allow or establish. A Nationalized Day of Prayer defeats the purpose and will inevitably wind up with pious posturing in which repentance and thanksgiving are transposed. Politicians offer pompous thanksgiving for national shames about which we ought to be begging God's forgiveness while at the same time lamenting many of the things most pleasing to God. A Nationalized Day of Prayer -- or a nationalized prayer breakfast -- is bound to wind up backwards and upside-down.
So my primary objection to the Nationalized Day of Prayer is a religious objection -- a sectarian, Baptist objection, in fact.
But I also don't think the constitutional question is terribly complicated. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." "Congress established the National Day of Prayer in 1952." "Congress established ... prayer."
Seriously, is that too complicated for anyone?
For many Americans, however, the First Amendment is complicated.
For those who subscribe to what my old friend Dwight Ozard called "hegemonic religion," the First Amendment seems incoherent and contradictory. The core belief of hegemonic religion is that religion cannot be freely exercised unless it is also established in law. Those who subscribe to a form of hegemonic religion therefore view the First Amendment as presenting a conflict or, they like to say, a "tension" between its two religious clauses.
Those of us from other, non-hegemonic religious traditions do not see this supposed conflict. Here is what the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says about religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
Sometimes a comma is just a comma and not a vast chasm separating two competing and incompatible ideas. The two clauses there do not conflict. At all. They are logically necessary counterparts of one another. Congress may not make any law establishing religion and Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Congress may not make any law establishing religion because to do so would be to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Hegemonic believers don't seem to appreciate this point. They can grasp that the establishment of one, official state religion might inhibit the freedom of those not belonging to the One True Official Sect, but they don't perceive how such an establishment also fundamentally alters the relationship of members of that official sect to their own church -- requiring lockstep assent to its official doctrines and practices as set forth thereafter by its official and legal enforcers.
There's more but this much sums it up. Readers at this point are already self-sorting themselves into two groups, those who see the point and agree and others who may or may not see the point but surely disagree.
My personal faith never rested on anything legal. Legalism, if anything, has presented me with moral dilemmas ever since I realized that wars were instruments of statecraft and interracial marriage was illegal. Legality and morality are plainly not congruent. I understood early on that many legal human choices are immoral and a few legally mandated behaviors are immoral. Why else would I have gone to the trouble to thread the moral needle in my teens by changing my draft status to Conscientious Objector?
I have watched sadly during the last two decades as Christians allowed politics and social issues to undermine the roots of their faith. In my lifetime those issues have included questions of race, war, sexual and gender identity and the proper role of faith in the public square. I have watched helplessly as many otherwise well-meaning people conflate politics with faith, losing their grip on both in the bargain.
A brief online Newsweek photo-essay traces the history of American Conservatism citing several fringe groups dating back to the Know-Nothings of the mid-Nineteenth Century.
Setting the template for movements to come, the Know-Nothings were the party of middle America: white, middle- and working-class Protestants with strong support in the Midwest. Staunchly Protestant and nativist, they proposed limits on immigration (especially from largely Roman Catholic countries such as Ireland and Italy) and long waiting periods for naturalization. But many of the party�s planks were garden-variety social conservatism�like support for temperance laws and prayer in schools. Many Know-Nothings were members of the dying Whig Party, including Millard Fillmore, the former Whig president who tried to reclaim the White House (and came in last) as a Know-Nothing candidate in 1856. (Fillmore, a veritable virtuoso of the fringe-party form, had first been elected as a New York state legislator on the Anti-Masonic Party ticket). Their name famously came from members� secrecy�when asked about the party, they would say that they knew nothing....The Know-Nothings couldn�t survive social tumult in the 1850s, when members split over abolition; many became members of the nascent Republican Party, founded in 1854.
Does that sound like anyone we know?
The writer goes on to include the Dixiecrats States� Rights Democrats, McCarthyists, George Wallace's American Independent Party, the Moral Majority, H. Ross Perot's Reform Party and finally today's Tea Parties. We can quibble over whether this or that group properly belongs in this populist continuum but the tenor of the trend is undeniable.
�
The notion of hegemonic religion lies at the heart of today's political conflicts, international as well as national. How better to classify extremists of all stripes? In the end we are divided into two groups: those who choose to do right and those who must be compelled to do so. The sad part is that compelled behavior is exactly the opposite of chosen behavior.
It is for this reason that I can be at once pro-choice and anti-abortion regarding the inflammatory abortion rights issue. Any woman who becomes pregnant for whatever reason carries the prospect of new life and may give birth to another Messiah. But I respect that it is she, not I, who must make that choice and no amount of coercion can reverse that reality. Regarding the creation of life, forced pregnancy and delivery is even worse than abortion. Similar dilemmas include end of life decisions (PEG tubes, assisted suicide, and other particulars relating to final directives) and even universal health care (right or privilege?). With a little reflection the list can get long and contentious.
This week a rash of indignant emails are swirling about among Christians bemoaning the fact that Franklin Graham's invitation to speak at some Army sponsored National Day of Prayer event was rescinded because of anti-Islamic remarks made in the past. In fact, there is renewed discussion of whether a National Day of Prayer may be unconstitutional. Naturally it was less that a minute before political types grabbed the bloody shirt and started waving it before anyone from the faith community had a chance to respond. (But I've noticed over the years that the faith community tends to do a much better job of comforting the afflicted than afflicting the comfortable, especially when The Comfortable supply the biggest revenue stream.)
So another Sunday comes and goes and as in the days of my youth I have the clear impression once again that The Church on Earth is not on the side of the angels.
No comments:
Post a Comment