Richard Mullenax: Traditionalists vs. Secularists

Many treat secularism and the separation of church and state as a threat to traditional values — by which they really mean conservative Christian values, although they aren’t always forthright enough to admit that. The question is, should secularism really be treated as a novel and anti-traditional innovation or is it instead a vital aspect of American history and traditions? Just because some Christians view it as antithetical to their own political and religious ideology doesn't mean that secularism suddenly becomes revolutionary. Richard Mullenax writes:

Secularists seemingly do not want any appearance of Christian morality guiding our laws because they believe it conflicts with the separation of church and state. Traditionalists want to keep Christian morality in our laws because it creates an ethical balance. Without moral laws to guide the United States, we would have chaos and then no one would be able to give a classification of morals. If we follow the secular view as we have for the past few decades, then we will continue to fall apart and become grim image of what we once were.

Secularists would indeed like to keep our civil laws from being determined by or limited to Christian doctrines, but that isn’t a position that is limited to secularists. People of all religions, including Christianity, agree with this. Richard Mullenax isn’t alone in trying to portray such debates as simply being between secularists and Christians, but it isn’t very honest. Why do some Christians do this? I suppose there are a variety of reasons, but I suspect that one common one is to encourage Christians who would otherwise support secular laws to start thinking of themselves and their religion as being under attack. If they start to be afraid, they can be manipulated into endorsing more authoritarian and even theocratic proposals.

Notice also how quickly Richard Mullenax moves from complaining about secular laws into lamenting what things would be like without “moral laws,” as if the absence of laws based upon “Christian morality” would therefore entail that there are no “moral laws.” Mullenax isn’t the first to suggest an absence of Christianity is the same as an absence of morality, but that isn’t very honest either (which sort of contradicts the original assertion). You can have morality in religions other than Christianity. You can have morality without any religion whatsoever. As a result, you can have morality without "Christian traditions" being used to determine the content of civil laws.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams (Federer, p. 10)

What an exhilarating revelation! The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. By this definition, religious principles undeniably govern our laws.

Richard Mullenax‘s powers of logical deduction and critical evaluation aren’t very good. The above quote doesn’t entail the conclusion he asserts, that religious principles “undeniably” govern our laws. On the contrary, it is arguable that if our Constitution is made only for a religious and moral people then the laws don’t need to be based upon religious principles — after all, a “religious and moral people” don’t need the government to enforce their own religious morality, right? If the Constitution is inadequate to the government of anyone other than a religious and moral people, perhaps it's precisely because religion and morality have been left out — and left to the people themselves.

Aside from that, John Adams didn’t write the Constitution, much less the First Amendment, so his idea of how it should be interpreted isn’t immediately more authoritative than that of others’. Just because he might have thought that the Constitution was incompatible with a nation of secular atheists doesn’t mean that anyone else necessarily has to think the same. Then again, it's possible that such an appeal to authority is only being made because Mullenax recognizes that this is ultimately a bigoted position which he doesn't want to have to be responsible for defending.

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
- George Washington (Federer, p. 660)

As with Adams, George Washington’s opinion about what is necessary to “govern the world” simply isn’t dispositive in this debate. It doesn’t much matter whether Washington thought that “God and the Bible” were necessary to govern; the fact that he did think so need not have any bearing on what happens with the government today. Does Richard Mullenax really wish to argue that our current government, which represents people of all faiths and no faith, should be run according to the religious scriptures of just one of those faiths? If so, he should have the courage to say so directly and unambiguously; if not, then why does he imply that this should be the case through his selective use of quotes?

"We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . . . to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
- President James Madison

This isn’t even a genuine quote, and one really has to wonder about someone who tries to bolster their case with fabricated quotes. Is it really too much to ask that a person construct their arguments on the basis of facts, reality, and reason? The truth is that James Madison was more a radical separationist than most people today are. Perhaps that’s why some people like Richard Mullenax use fake quotes from him — his views on the Constitution and the First Amendment would be authoritative, but the things he actually said and did contradict the theocratic position.

After looking at these documents, it appears that our past leaders’ interpretation of the Constitution is in favor of traditionalists such as me.

Let’s assume just for a moment that that were actually true: does it matter? At one time, out past leaders’ interpretation of the Constitution included thinking that women shouldn’t vote, slavery should exist, and ear notching didn’t constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.” More recently, it was thought consistent with the Constitution to segregate the races and ban interracial marriage. Should we adopt those interpretations today? Perhaps Richard Mullenax thinks so, but that would put him so far outside the mainstream of political and legal thinking that the label “lunatic fringe” would probably be appropriate.

Notice that Richard Mullenax begins and ends his essay with an appeal to the idea that he represents the "traditionalist" perspective. There's a lot wrong with this and I'm not sure Mullenax was aware of any of it when he wrote this. First, a position or claim is not rendered more legitimate, reasonable, or true merely because it is "traditional." Racism and segregation have been "traditional," but you can't defend them by appealing to tradition. If Mullenax's position really is legitimate, then he should be able to make a case for that regardless of whether it's traditional or not.

Second, as noted above, the most radical ideas of separating church and state can be traced right back to James Madison himself, a politician who believed in stricter separation than most conservatives today would be willing to accept. He wasn't the first nor the last American to believing in the importance of strictly separating church and state. Given all this, how can his position not be treated as "traditional" as well? It's perhaps revolutionary against the backdrop of two millennia of western European history, but it's quite traditional in the context of American government.

If strict separation of church and state is in any way still "radical," it's only because of the persistence of so many Christians in believing that government should be theocratic and authoritarian, not democratic and free. To put it another way, secularism and church/state separation are radical to the same degree that liberty and democracy are radical — and in large part because they all tend to be opposed by the "traditionalist" forces.