Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Establishment

Establishment

Last updated on: January 7, 2012 at 7:00 pm by Fred Clark

Establishment 2012-01-07T19:00:30-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A federal judge has ruled that the establishment by Congress of a National Day of Prayer conflicts with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I believe the legal term for this ruling is "no duh."

I happen to like the idea of a day of prayer, and of a nationwide day of prayer. But I'm utterly opposed to the idea that such a day of prayer ought to be nationalized. Once the thing becomes nationalized and official and established it becomes another thing entirely. Prayer is not something to be rendered unto Caesar, nor is it something Caesar ought to be put in charge of, asked to bless, permit, allow or establish. A Nationalized Day of Prayer defeats the purpose and will inevitably wind up with pious posturing in which repentance and thanksgiving are transposed. Politicians offer pompous thanksgiving for national shames about which we ought to be begging God's forgiveness while at the same time lamenting many of the things most pleasing to God. A Nationalized Day of Prayer — or a nationalized prayer breakfast — is bound to wind up backwards and upside-down.

So my primary objection to the Nationalized Day of Prayer is a religious objection — a sectarian, Baptist objection, in fact.

But I also don't think the constitutional question is terribly complicated. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." "Congress established the National Day of Prayer in 1952." "Congress established … prayer."

Seriously, is that too complicated for anyone?

For many Americans, however, the First Amendment is complicated.

For those who subscribe to what my old friend Dwight Ozard called "hegemonic religion," the First Amendment seems incoherent and contradictory. The core belief of hegemonic religion is that religion cannot be freely exercised unless it is also established in law. Those who subscribe to a form of hegemonic religion therefore view the First Amendment as presenting a conflict or, they like to say, a "tension" between its two religious clauses.

Those of us from other, non-hegemonic religious traditions do not see this supposed conflict. Here is what the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says about religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …"

Sometimes a comma is just a comma and not a vast chasm separating two competing and incompatible ideas. The two clauses there do not conflict. At all. They are logically necessary counterparts of one another. Congress may not make any law establishing religion and Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Congress may not make any law establishing religion because to do so would be to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Hegemonic believers don't seem to appreciate this point. They can grasp that the establishment of one, official state religion might inhibit the freedom of those not belonging to the One True Official Sect, but they don't perceive how such an establishment also fundamentally alters the relationship of members of that official sect to their own church — requiring lockstep assent to its official doctrines and practices as set forth thereafter by its official and legal enforcers.

The establishment of any sect casts suspicion on all members of that sect. Coerced belief is belief that cannot be trusted. Coerced belief, therefore, will never be trusted — it will be dis-trusted, inspected, codified, measured and forced to demonstrate its loyalty and legitimacy time and again.

This is no less true when the coercion is softer, the result of a set of privileges, incentives and disincentives. All such privileges and incentives incentivize disingenuous claims of religious belonging. To privilege any one set of believers, therefore, requires the implementation of mechanisms to challenge and sort out the genuine believers from the mere pretenders claiming allegiance only in order to gain access to those privileges that accompany membership in the established sect. Such sorting mechanisms are never perfect — allowing many hypocritical posers to slip past while unjustly condemning many sincere and genuine believers. And such sorting mechanisms are never pretty. This is where inquisitions come from.

There's only one way to have an established religion without having an inquisition and that is to go without any such tests to distinguish genuine from disingenuous allegiance to official doctrine. That results in a different kind of disaster for the official, established sect. It means that nominal, indistinct, content-less faith becomes the norm. It turns the established sect into something toothless and vague — the C&E faith of the C of E (Christmas, Easter, Church, England).

These are the unavoidable options for any sect that becomes official and established. It can become monstrous or it can become mundane, but either way it cannot continue to be exercised as freely. Establishment restricts the religious freedom of those belonging to the official sect just as surely as it restricts the freedom of the religious minorities it disenfranchises.

All of which is why here in America support for a secular state (a redundant phrase) comes not just from Baptists and Anabaptists, pagans and freethinkers and other sects with a history as dissenting, persecuted minorities, but also from adherents of sects that are or have been legally established, official religions — from Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Hindus, Jews, Sunnis, Shiites, Anglicans, etc. The free exercise of those traditions is freer in a country with a secular state than it is in a country in which any one of them is legally enforced and officially privileged.

Many of the most vocal proponents of hegemonic religion in America understand all of that, but they don't really care because they're really just lying bastards who don't give a damn about religion and aren't arguing in good faith.

The vanguard of hegemonic religion is made up not of believers but of swindlers, con artists and demagogues. Tony Perkins, Newt Gingrich, David Barton, Roy Moore, Glenn Beck and Brannon Howse aren't religious believers, they're just bad, bad people. They are predators siphoning money and votes and money and more money from anyone fearful or vain enough to be deceived by their shtick.*

Such demagogues don't interest me much. Their motives is transparent — money. Or power that can be wielded to gain money. Boring.

The followers of demagogues are always much more interesting. Our weaknesses are what make us vulnerable to such predators. That's part of the genius of their traps — escaping from their lies once initially caught requires admitting to the fearfulness or the vanity that made us receptive to whatever it was the demagogues were selling with their appeals to that fear and vanity.

And yes, in the final analysis, fear and vanity are what I think attracts people to hegemonic religion. Vanity, in that it offers the reassuring promise that one set of people — one sect, our sect — is better than everyone else. Fear, in that it promises to protect us from what we fear most — our own weakness and infidelity.

Hegemonic religion is the religion of the faithless. Only the faithless feel the need for it — for the promise that one's fragile, brittle faith will be reinforced at every turn throughout society, reinforced by the state itself with the force of law. If you're scared that your faith cannot stand on its own — that it cannot withstand exposure to a science textbook or to a woman not clad in a burkha — then hegemonic religion promises to protect you from losing what little faith you have. It promises that you will never be allowed to wander off on the rumspringa from whi

ch you know you would never return.

The
practical problem for those advocating established religion here in America is that we're a pluralistic society in which no clear majority sect claims the allegiance of more than half the country. The lying hucksters like David Barton try to gloss this over by speaking as vaguely as possible of America as a "Christian nation," but that proves about as meaningful and useful as saying that Belfast is a "Christian" city (or that Baghdad is an "Islamic" one).

Proponents of a sectarian state are therefore forced into a kind of hung Parliament. Al Mohler may want to see his particular brand of post-Baptist Southern Baptist belief privileged as the established state religion, and William Donohue may want to see his politicized brand of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism enjoy this state sanction, but both men realize that as large as their denominations may be, neither makes up anything like a majority, and both include many millions of adherents who don't share their hegemonic views.

So sectarians are forced to try to form a kind of coalition government, allying with one another against the separation of church and state in the hope that — one day, once it all gets sorted out in the post-secular, post-constitutional America — their sect will ultimately emerge as the dominant official, established religion.

This is why savvy sectarians speak of "the Judeo-Christian tradition." It's an effort to broaden the coalition to include more allies against secular governance, swelling their ranks with whatever Jewish believers might share their hegemonic perspective.

Prior to 9/11, religious right leaders in the U.S. had begun reaching out to even stranger bedfellows in this culture-war coalition, forming alliances with Islamic conservatives to oppose things like the United Nations conventions on the rights of the child and on the rights of women. A shared opposition to the rights of women — and to modernity as a whole — trumped any secondary disagreements, much the same way this shared antipathy toward women and modernity has set aside the longstanding feud between conservative Catholics and Protestant fundamentalists.

In recent years, the biggest story involving this incoherent, unsustainable coalition of hegemonic sectarians has been the several attempts by conservative Mormons to join the coalition. Mitt Romney failed in his first attempt to win support from the sectarian religious right, but he's trying again, bolstered by the prominent role Mormons played in postponing marriage equality in California and by the popularity among sectarian evangelicals of the nominally Mormon swindler Glenn Beck.

This is a foolish and dangerous game Romney is playing. The opposition he encountered from Christianist sectarians should have convinced him that his own Mormon tradition, like any distinct religious minority, depends on the protection afforded it by the separation of church and state. His advocacy of hegemonic, anti-secular government is very bad news for the Latter Day Saints.

At the same time, Romney's unwelcome attempt to join the parliamentary coalition of religion hegemons raises in the minds of its misguided supporters the one question that the coalition's continued existence depends on no one ever asking: Which sect?

That is the question that every advocate of established religion and sectarian government cannot answer. And thus it is the question that every such advocate should be forced to answer. Until they stop.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* If that sounds overly harsh, don't worry. These people only keep score in one way, and since they've all got a lot more money than I do, they couldn't care less if I'm critical of them. They're winning — that's all that matters to them. Cha-ching.

And in any case, if we interpret the rules of civility to mean that people who repeatedly and brazenly lie for money can never be called out for repeatedly and brazenly lying for money, even after they've been confronted with their lies and, every time, doubled down on them rather than correcting their statements, then such rules of civility would mean that any civil discourse must be one in which all conversation is dominated by people who repeatedly and brazenly lie for money. And that doesn't sound very civil to me at all.

Uncategorized

church & state

Previous Post

April 23, 2010

Reflected-Remedy

Next Post

April 27, 2010 Growing grapes at 11,000 feet

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the name of the first murderer in the Bible?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Lamech Esau Ishmael Cain