Although the Constitution explicitly requires separation of church and state, most Americans don't mind — indeed many demand — that their president not only honor religious faith, an American hallmark, but function in some sense as a religious leader. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, who did not strike most observers as devout, carried his Bible to a Washington church nearly every Sunday morning while president. And Sen. John F. Kerry favorably mentions his Catholic faith, despite his opposition to his church's moral teachings on abortion. It is safe to say that no one who possesses hostility to religion is likely to be elected president soon.

This is not just "ceremonial deism," the purely formalistic civil religion that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor discussed in her concurring opinion in the Pledge of Allegiance case. It is a genuine civil religion, lending credence to G.K. Chesterton's observation that America "is a nation with the soul of a church." About 83% of Americans define themselves as Christians, and nearly all believe in a deity. True, only 38% attend weekly religious services, according to an ABC News poll in 2002 — but that's startlingly high for a First World nation (and observers say it leaves out the millions who attend church, but less frequently).

Paradoxically, contends Baylor University sociologist Rodney Stark, America owes its high level of religious intensity to the separation of church and state. In contrast with Europe, with its fading government-supported churches, "We have a competitive religious economy here, where churches have to work to get members," Stark says.

Not surprisingly, religion — Christianity and Judaism, in particular — fueled both the antislavery movement of the 19th century and the civil-rights movement of the 20th. The leaders of both movements didn't hesitate to quote Scripture to remind their listeners that what they stood for was morally grounded in the Bible, as well as in secular philosophy. Religion was not only a "purely personal" matter but also one of grave public import.

That is as it should be. Religion, by nature, is a public thing, because it acknowledges a reality that is outside the private realm of the inner heart. Individuals' faith and religious experiences are private matters, but religion itself, whether it be Wicca, Buddhism or Roman Catholicism, is shared and communal. Those who would banish religion to the realm of the strictly private in effect contend that religion has no relevance to public life. This notion fatally trivializes religion by treating it as essentially meaningless.

More important, religion recognizes there is inherent meaning, order and purpose in the universe. It thus induces humility; a recognition that our puny ideas about how things are and ought to be may not be the final word. The horror of 20th century totalitarianism was the insistence of atheistic, militantly secularist intellectuals, from Germany to Russia to China to Cuba, that they had a right to impose their pet utopian schemes at the point of a gun or threat of the gulag. Professing "allegiance … to a higher authority," as Robert Reich, secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration puts it, is a check on such murderous egotism.

Most Americans believe that God orders the universe, and so they resonate to declarations that this is true. Ronald Reagan's popularity rested in part on his religious faith. Many people who would never vote Democratic admired Al Gore's running mate in 2000, Sen. Joe Lieberman, for his observant Orthodox Judaism. In politics, it never hurts to represent your constituents. So why shouldn't Bush — or Kerry, or any other politician or president — declare openly the extent to which religious beliefs inform his positions and policies?

In a column titled "Bush's God" in this month's American Prospect magazine, Reich declares that religion is a graver threat to America than terrorism. Reich predicts that the great battle of the 21st century won't be between terrorists and the West but between "those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority … between those who believe in science, reason and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma."

Reich isn't the only one anxious about religion invading politics. Last year, Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, complained that Bush was sending a secret message of solidarity to fellow Christians when he used the phrase "wonder-working power" — taken from a Christian hymn — in a sentence praising Americans' faith and idealism in his State of the Union address. And in a review of several books on the president's family for the current New Yorker magazine, David Greenberg contends that because the inspiration of God and the Bible "is purely personal or subjective, it's not open to debate — and decisions based on it become immune from scrutiny." In other words, it's downright undemocratic for the president to mention God in public.

There's an obvious response to Greenberg's argument: Given that we've got a presidential election in November, offering voters a chance to boot out the Bible-thumping president if they wish, where's the threat to democracy?

Religious people, certainly Christians, have over the centuries committed many a mortal wrong in the name of their faith. But those wrongs pale in comparison with the mountains of corpses generated by the two most ghastly 20th century experiments in turning governments over to irreligious intellectuals and social theorists — Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union — and their bloody epigones, some of which are still around today. There is some value to the humility inherent in deferring to something, or Someone, beyond yourself.

Published in the Los Angeles Times, Sunday, July 11, 2004 and adapted by the author for tothesource

Secular democracy vs secularism: Stout’s distinction makes all the difference

"Stout, however, will have none of this secularism. A secular democracy recognizes that people differ in their religious commitments; secularism, on the other hand, requires them to pretend that they don't have those commitments."

Christian Century May 4, 2004

"It would be unrealistic to expect membership in religious groups to have no influence on democratic decision making and debate, for one function of religious traditions is to confer order on highly important values and concerns, some of which obviously have political relevance.

Yet some prominent political theorists and philosophers are suspicious of individuals who use religious premises when arguing publicly for a political proposal. They ground their suspicion in the notion that reasoning on important political questions must ultimately be based on principles that no reasonable citizen could reasonably reject. I find this notion extremely implausible as an account of what we could conceivably have in common, but here I am less concerned with proving it wrong than with developing an alternative understanding of public reasoning.

All democratic citizens should feel free, in my view, to express whatever premises actually serve as reasons for their claims. The respect for others that civility requires is most fully displayed in the kind of exchange where each person's deepest commitments can be recognized for what they are and assessed accordingly. It is simply unrealistic to expect citizens to bracket such commitments when reasoning about fundamental political questions."

Democracy and Tradition
Princeton University Press

tothesource reader brings insight to the role of faith in governance

I wanted to thank you for what you are doing. I am frustrated many times that when faith and thought are presented in a forum usually the thoughts are closed. It is refreshing to me to be able to have a source of information where I can consider such sources as Andrew Sullivan (www.andrewsullivan.com). Though I may not completely agree with him all the time I appreciate his thoughts and they challenge mine.

As to politics in general and the gay marriage issue in particular it is disturbing to me that the current trend in thinking is that a citizen must segregate their faith from their citizen's ideas. What I mean is this: as I think of a political issue, such as gay marriage, if I have a moral opinion that is based on my belief system the current thinking seems to be that I should ignore this and base my citizen's opinion on a "secular" viewpoint. I do not believe this is democracy. Democracy is the will of the people. Though we are a representative democracy the representatives are voted on based on their representation of the citizens values and opinions.

My worldview/values result from my belief that there is a God and he has particular values and character traits. An agnostic's or atheist's worldview/values is also greatly influenced by his or her religious views. Why should I be required to vote according to his or her values rather than mine. There is no such thing as a value-free/secular political opinion.

Now I must say that my values include: religious freedom (everyone has a right to choose their own beliefs), protection of minorities from majorities (majority rule only works with the golden rule) and respect for all people. But these values are weighed equally with my other moral values as I consider issues. - D. R.

The National Association of Evangelicals Issues a call to civic responsibility

"The presence and role of religion in public life is attacked more fiercely now than ever, making the bias of aggressive secularism the last acceptable prejudice in America."

"As sinners who are thankful for God’s grace, we know that we do not always live up to our civic responsibility. Christians must approach political engagement with humility and with earnest prayer for divine guidance and wisdom. Because power structures are often entrenched, perfect solutions are unobtainable. Because cultural changes produce problems that are often not amenable to legislative solutions, we must not expect political activity to achieve more than it can. Because social systems are complex and our knowledge is incomplete, we cannot predict all the effects of laws, policies, and regulations.

As a result, we must match our high ideals with careful social analysis and critical reflection on our experience in order to avoid supporting policies that produce unintended and unfortunate consequences."

Rising To The Challenge of Pluralism

"A public religion cannot be a common religion. Today, our public religion must be a collection of particular religions, not a combination of religious particulars. It must be a process of open religious discourse, not a product of ecumenical distillation. All religious voices, visions, and values must be heard and considered in the public square. All public religious services and activities, unless criminal or tortuous, must be given a chance to come forth and compete in all their denominational particularity."

"Some conservative Evangelical and Catholic groups today have understood this. Their rise to prominence in the public square in recent years should not be met with glib talk of censorship or with habitual invocations of Jefferson's mythical wall of separation. The rise of the so-called Christian right should be met with the equally strong rise of the Christian left, or the Christian middle, and of Jewish, Muslim, and other religious groups who contest the right's premises, prescriptions, and policies. That is how a healthy democracy works. The real challenge that the new Christian right poses is not to the integrity of American politics, but to the apathy of American religions. It is a challenge for peoples of faith and of no faiths to take their place in the they public forum."

John Witte Jr.
First Things March 2004

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.