It's common - far too common - for public officials to introduce god-talk into their public statements or speeches. This is often defended on the basis of most Americans believing in God and, therefore, it's appropriate to integrate that belief into public acts of government. Well, most Americans believe in Jesus, too - so why not put 'Jesus' in the places where they say 'God'?

In Politics, Religion, and the Common Good, Martin E. Marty points out that such a replacement wouldn’t be accepted, despite the fact that it would be defensible by the exact same arguments:

Just as church leaders and elected officials often disagree, the religious public servant may experience inner theological conflict in trying to reconcile personal faith with the nation’s pluralism. In a nation where more than 80 percent of the people regard Jesus as a revelation of God, specific witness to Jesus among chief executives carrying out their duties is nonetheless rare, and most people see it as being out of place.

Jimmy Carter might have taught orthodox Christology at Sunday school during his years in the White House, but he used more generalized God language in public. He made no mention of his born-again faith in Jesus in his inaugural and very rarely in his public utterances. Elected officials may indeed draw on the ethical impulses at the core of their personal faith, but making such appeals explicit risks offending large numbers of citizens. Political administration is made easier when invocations of faith remain general.

Defenders of god-talk in public acts of government might think it relevant to point out that talking about God rather than Jesus is inclusive of Jews and Muslims, but that doesn’t salvage their position. First, Jews and Muslims are such tiny minorities that it would barely change the numbers who are ultimately included in Jesus-talk. Second, if it’s appropriate to be inclusive of the small Jewish and Muslim minorities, why not also the small polytheistic minorities — or the larger and increasing atheistic minorities?

The truthful answer is simply bigotry — Jews and Muslims are “included” (it’s not always a very heartfelt inclusion) because bigotry towards them is not considered socially acceptable, so tossing them few crumbs from time to time is a good idea. Bigotry and exclusion of atheists, however, is socially acceptable. Being social acceptable, however, isn’t the same as being rational, ethically consistent, or legal.

There are plenty of people who seem to be comfortable with the idea of relegating atheists to a second-class status, but it wouldn’t be legal for them to do so.

 

Quick Poll: If it's OK for the government to acknowledge God, is it OK to acknowledge Jesus, too?

1. Yes, and the government should acknowledge Jesus more often.
2. Yes, and both are equally wrong.
3. No, it's OK to acknowledge God but not Jesus.
4. I don't know.
5. I don't care.

Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.