Perhaps the best way for a group or person to exercise power in a manner that harms others is to convince people that one doesn't actually have any power to begin with. This is the tactic adopted by many conservative religious institutions in America: despite wielding tremendous direct power as well as indirect power through their influence, they have persistently argued that they are powerless due to American culture being secularized.
In God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law, Marci A. Hamilton writes:
In 1990, Stephen Carter published “The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion,” which argued that religious interests were being sidelined in the United States. He stated: “there is much depressing evidence that the religious voice is required to stay out of the public square.” The book was an influential bestseller, and even appears in the hand of President William Jefferson Clinton in Yale University’s portrait of him.
The problem with Professor Carter’s thesis was that religious institutions were not politically powerless, but his thesis permitted them to exercise political power while appearing to be socially weak.
Carter, of course, is not the only person who has argued that U.S. culture has been “secularized.” It’s a dominant theme in contemporary culture, and one that fosters religious entities’ political agendas rather nicely. In the midst of the rhetoric regarding secularization, it is easy to assume that religious institutions are either politically dormant or that they are politically ineffective, and therefore to think they need exemptions from the law, or for representatives to think they deserve special treatment. Neither is accurate.
Are religious institutions or speakers required to stay out of the public square? Of course not — you can’t turn around in America without encountering people publicly expressing religious beliefs. Public expression of religion is not oppressed or discriminated against in the United States. People are as free in their religious belief and practice as they have ever been — and perhaps freer, since the playing field between Christianity and other religions has been substantially leveled.
What people like Stephen Carter are actually complaining about is the decrease in government privileges for such expression and the decline in automatic deference which religious beliefs are accorded. They can’t state their position in this way because doing so would reveal how illegitimate their complaints ultimately are — but make no mistake, this is the real issue.
There was a time in America’s history when Christianity — primarily Protestant Christianity — held a special status in the culture and politics. Governments at all levels either openly or tacitly supported churches and other religious institutions. People in all walks of life tended to give special deference to religious figures, religious organizations, and religious ideas. None of this was generally accorded to non-religious institutions or ideas; only rarely were non-Protestants beneficiaries of the same largesse.
Today the situation is very different. Contemporary America is much more religiously diverse than it was in the past and various religious groups are not willing to stand by while Protestant Christians are given special treatment. This means fighting government support for one religion over others (like official prayers at city council meetings) and arguing against cultural assumptions that everyone is Christian (like wishing everyone Merry Christmas instead of the more general Happy Holidays).
America has experienced widespread secularization, but more important here is the fact that America is experiencing even more widespread de-Christianization. There are still many ways in which America is not very secular, but it also isn’t so Christian anymore; rather than providing special privileges just for Christians, special privileges are given to all religions. This is what tends to infuriate conservative Christians but they typically argue against “secularization,” not being willing to reveal that they are seeking the reinstatement of Christian privilege.
By pretending that equal treatment and government neutrality are really examples of oppression and discrimination, religious conservatives think that they can make a case for the idea that they are powerless in America and need special exemptions from generally applicable laws. Aside from continuing to be powerful and influential, this would permit them to exercise that power without having to be accountable to others. This is a serious problem because it subverts the public good in the name of religious privilege.
