Blogsnark: Myth of a Secular State
Will Malven writes:
The first amendment to the constitution. Read it as many times as you like, you will find not a single word about the "separation of church and state." As a matter of fact, except for the words "of" and "and," that phrase does not appear at all.
It's absolutely true that the Constitution doesn't contain the phrase "separation of church and state." It's also absolutely true that the Constitution doesn't contain the word "privacy," so is there no right to privacy? It's absolutely true that the Constitution doesn't contain the phrase "right to a fair trial," so does that mean that an unfair trial isn't necessarily a violation of your rights? It's absolutely true that the Constitution doesn't contain the words "you have a right to publicly funded lawyer if you can't afford one," so does that mean that the indigent shouldn't be get lawyers paid for by the state?
No, all of those conclusions are absurd. Just because a specific phrase doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution doesn't mean that, therefore, that principle isn't part of the text. That's not how language works. People who argue that the absence of a phrase means the absence of that principle either don't understand language or, more likely, are being deliberately disingenuous with tendentious readings.
What conservative Christians need to do — and what you won't find them doing — is explain how a union of church and state (because a union is the opposite of separation) would be compatible with the constitutional text and principles. You won't find them doing this because it's not possible. It's possible to argue that a less-than-strict separation of church and state is compatible with the constitutional text and principles. It's possible to argue that certain arrangements that appear to violate separation may be compatible with the text and principles of the Constitution.
But people like Malven don't argue for "less than strict separation" or "less separation in certain types of cases." They are specific and clear that they oppose the separation of church and state — completely. If separation isn't accepted, then some form of union must be the goal. We see some of that when Malven writes:
"Well then, why do Liberals keep referring to the "separation of church and state?" Simple, it serves their purpose, to undermine the moral fabric of our society thereby making way for their utopian socialist state. You see, one cannot construct a new society based on secular ideals, until the prior Christian state is deconstructed and anarchy forces the people to seek a source of order. The left envision themselves as this new source of order and the communist or at the very least socialist state as their vehicle to power. Remember, only liberals know what is best for you, in their eyes, you can't be trusted to run your own lives.
"Secular Constitutionalists?" Not on your life. The very words are hateful to America. They represent, in fact, the very antithesis of what our forefathers envisioned. The next time you hear someone (probably a liberal, or confused moderate) use the term "separation of church and state" as though it actually was legitimate, just laugh at them. [emphasis in the original]
The fact that some conservatives support the separation of church and state doesn't seem to matter. The fact that many religious people support the separation of church and state doesn't seem to matter. The fact that separating church and state were explicit goals of people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison doesn't seem to matter. All that matters is that such separation is contrary to Malven's idea of what "America" is supposed to be: a Christian state. Not merely a "religious" state, but a Christian state where non-Christians — atheist or theist — must necessarily be second-class citizens.
Secular constitutionalists are those who recognize that the Constitution is a secular document. It does nothing to encourage or discourage religion. It does nothing to encourage or discourage Christianity. In the main text, the only reference to religion is to prohibit religious tests for public office — thus ensuring that the state remain secular rather than becoming an instrument for the enforcement of religious orthodoxy. The Constitution is secular. The government is supposed to be secular. Religion is supposed to be left in private hands, outside the authority of government bureaucrats.
As an aside, I find Malven's assertion that "only liberals know what is best for you, in their eyes, you can't be trusted to run your own lives" rather ironic given how religious conservatives have been trying to find ways to run others' lives in the wake of the Terri Schiavo case. America's Christian Right (which Malven openly accepts being a part of) is not a movement for smaller government, less government intrusion in people's lives, or greater liberty in how people lead their lives. The Christian Right is a movement that explicitly proclaims the authority of the government to interfere in people's lives whenever they make choices or do things contrary to conservative, evangelical doctrines. The Christian Right is not a movement of liberty, it's a movement of religious authoritarianism.
Want to Comment on this? Post in the Forum
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment