Maybe I am combative or argumentative by nature, or just plain curious about what people believe, but in my conversations with my friends, I often cannot resist asking, "Why do you believe that?" Whether we are talking about the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, or the fight for fair trade, or the reproductive rights of women, or the battle against poverty, or the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, or the pervasiveness of pornography, I try to probe and understand the fundamental assumptions that my friends hold. But no matter how diverse the topics of our conversations are, I notice that one fundamental assumption almost never fails to emerge: Separation of church and state means that religion has no business influencing public policy.
To explain why they hold that particular assumption, my friends kindly, but staunchly, allude to the First Amendment. They decry any religious element in public policy as a violation of the non-establishment clause. They tell me that the founding fathers of this nation, in their determination to escape the terror of religious wars, have established a civil government that forbids any religious group from gaining official power. They remind me of the hatred, persecutions, suffering and death that religion has produced in the past and of the threat still posed by religious fanatics in our day. It is better, they insist, that religion be excluded from the public square and remain a private matter.
I can sympathize with their fear of and disregard for religion. But I disagree with their view of religion, and in particular, their understanding of the role of religion in the public square. I believe that wisdom and prudence demand that we do not judge a philosophy by its abuse. The aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks witnessed a spate of lectures and seminars across the nation that defended Islam as a peaceful religion because those who had carefully studied Islam were able to recognize terrorism as a terrible distortion of that religion. If we employ the same patience, sensitivity and thoughtfulness to our examination of other religions, we will find a similar promotion of love, charity, tolerance, peace and good deeds.
More importantly, I am not convinced that the separation of church and state means that the public square must be purged of all religious perspectives. Secularism, by this interpretation, implies the formation of a naked public square where religious thought is excluded from any serious participation in public life and religious belief is confined to the private realm, where it may do little public harm and little public good. This concept of secularism takes upon itself the obligation to expose the blindness and irrationality of historical religions and liberate modern minds from myths and delusions. But some have argued that secularism of this aggressive nature sets itself as an alternate faith, a new religion, a substitute orthodoxy, and actually creates a new establishment with the distinction of being an establishment, not of religion, but of irreligion. Is this not a violation of the non-establishment clause, too? Does the First Amendment forbid the establishment of state religion but condone the establishment of official non-religion?
Perhaps the non-establishment clause begs a different interpretation. Maybe the original intent was to create and maintain a forum where all views, including religious views, may freely enter and exit a truly neutral platform that provides for the free discussion, acceptance or rejection of all views, and allows religious perspectives to influence public policy so long as they are reasonable and persuasive. Secularism, by this interpretation, does not privilege non-religion over religion but is equally respectful of both. It also understands the religious needs of humanity and does not insist that this religious impulse be restricted to the private realm.
Besides, are we in danger of being narrow-minded in believing that religion has nothing to contribute to our public discourse?
