A common complaint from the Christian Right is that strict separation of church and state threatens to create a “godless” or naked public square and that the goal of secularists, godless atheists, and godless liberals is to do just that. A godless public square appears to be the worst nightmare for the Christian Right, and even some liberal Christians have bought into the idea that there is something wrong with this. They don’t realize that the public square is already godless — as it should be.
To understand how and why the public square is and should be godless, the first thing to understand is what the public square is. The public square is not a single, physical space; instead, it’s a metaphorical space in which all members of the public are (or should be) equally free to express their views. It can be physical, in the sense of a real public square in the middle of town, or non-physical, like newspapers and journals. To be public, the public square must be equally open to all.
Contrary to what the Christian Right might like people to believe, godlessness is not enforced atheism or an active suppression of religion. Instead, godlessness is simply the absence of any specific worship or recognition of any gods. The godlessness of the public square is the absence of any official recognition or worship of any specific gods, regardless of what individuals might do on their own while in the public square. Official godlessness is thus a guarantee for personal liberty.
There is absolutely no effort to prevent individuals from acknowledging or worshipping gods in the public square. What is restricted is the ability of the government to acknowledge or worship gods in the public square. To say that the public square is godless does not mean that religious and theistic beliefs don’t exist within it, but instead that the religious and theistic beliefs in it belong to the individuals in it rather than to the public square itself.
The Christian Right is wrong to claim that the godlessness of the public square is an infringement on Christians’ rights because it does not prevent individuals from acknowledging or worshipping any gods. Godlessness simply prevents Christians from assuming or pretending to assume exclusive control over the public square by preventing the government from doing the worshipping for Christians. It is thus a denial of unjust Christian privileges, not of Christians’ rights.
Keeping the public square officially godless also serves to deny the growth of more general religious privilege, not just Christian Privilege specifically. Because the public square is godless and secular, no religions are favored over any others and religion generally is not favored. This helps guarantee that citizens of all religions and all beliefs, theist as well as atheist, come to the public square on exactly the same level. They are equal in every way.
If the public square were not godless and secular, then what would it be? If it were not secular, then it would have to reflect the beliefs of some particular religion and not others; if it were not godless, then it would have to acknowledge and worship some particular god and not others. Thus an area that it supposed to be for the entire public would, in fact, favor only certain portions of the public over others. It wouldn’t really be a “public” square anymore, would it?
What does the godlessness of the public square mean to atheists and godless Americans? Most importantly, they are not favored or privileged in any way. Atheists are no more favored by the absence of official acknowledgment or worship of gods in the public square than they are by a similar absence of official worship of gods in most businesses, in baseball, or in obtaining a driver’s license. The mere absence of gods favors no atheists because atheism isn’t being promoted.
Just as godless atheists are not favored by the godlessness of the public square, religious theists are not disadvantaged. The fact that some are not privileged means instead that all religious theists are on an equal playing field — that’s a necessary consequence of not allowing the public square to reflect any one group’s beliefs. Thus the godless public square benefits religious believers because they know they will be treated equally, no matter what they believe.
Many religious theists will automatically assume that if the public square is godless, then they are being discriminated against and/or their right to free exercise of religion is being infringed upon. If this were true, that would mean that a “godly” public square discriminates against atheists. Is that what they desire? The truth is that the public square must be godless in order for the religious liberty of all to be protected. The idea that a godless public square infringes on liberty is based upon two misunderstandings.
First, many will assume that “godless” means that all religious expression is banned from the public square. This is incorrect because the adjective “godless” here refers to the nature of the public square itself, not the nature of the views which citizens bring to it. The public square is “godless” just like obtaining a driver’s license is godless: worship of gods plays no role. Another analogy is to point out that the public square is neither Republican nor Democrat because the nature of the public square does not reflect the policies of either political party; this does not mean, however, that citizens expressing the views of either party are banned. It simply means that they express those views on neutral ground. The same is the case with religious theists — the public square is neutral, even if they are not.
Second, many will think that if the public square is “godless,” then “godless” beliefs are being advanced to the detriment of religious beliefs. This is akin to the common argument that if public entities like school boards dropped explicitly Christian prayers, then the absence of an endorsement of Christianity would mean that the board is “promoting” atheism. This is obviously false — if school boards fail to endorse capitalism, does this mean they are endorsing communism? There is a middle-ground of neutrality where no one is being endorsed at all, and that’s what’s happening in a godless public square.
