Taking Your Own Side
A fellow student recently quipped that “a liberal is someone too open-minded to take their own side in a fight.” He made this as we were leaving a class on Constitutional Law in which many students got involved in intense discussions about the Establishment Clause (full disclosure: I attend Harding University, a conservative Christian school in Arkansas).
Many of the students in the class were upset at the Court for striking down laws and policies that benefited the Christian religion. They were angry that things like school prayer and baccalaureate services had even been challenged in federal courts, and some were even more shocked that a fellow Christian would agree with those Court rulings that promote a separation of church and state.
I am a Christian. Am I failing to defend “my own side” if I agree with Supreme Court rulings banning school prayer and I disagree with pseudo-historians like David Barton who say that we are a “Christian nation?” Am I taking the wrong side because most of my fellow Christians are against me and most atheists agree with me?
I think that quip about “taking your own side” is too simplistic of a way of looking at the complex ideological interaction and resolution between religious and political philosophy. In fact, I feel it is unethical to use the government to promote religion at all, even if it is my religion. I arrive at that conclusion after a complicated unification of my own political, philosophical, and religious beliefs. I think this question is the great political and religious question facing our country today: how tolerant are we going to be? Are we going to be a country that establishes a religion based on the majority’s worldview at the expense of the minority? Or are we going to be a country that allows free exercise of religion for all people and doesn’t use governmental resources to prop up one faith or another? It may be hard for some of my peers at a conservative Christian school to see this, but we are all better off in the long run if we embrace tolerance instead of merely “taking our own side.”
“a liberal is someone too open-minded to take their own side in a fight.”
Two responses to this: One, “too open-minded,” as if that’s a bad thing? Not hardly. Too-close minded, however, is damaging to intellectual “fighting.” Two, if I have a delineated side, then I’ve already taken it. I can’t have a side, then not take it, because then I wouldn’t have a side. Comments like these are completely asinine and serve no other interest but to infuriate others.
By the way, this is the “definition” of a liberal (to those of you who ascribe to the faulty definition above): a liberal is someone who is tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others and favors gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.
So, for someone who is tolerant of different views and favors protection of personal freedom, agreeing with a separation of Church and State is definitely taking a side in a “fight.”
Generally speaking I think I agree with the thrust of the argument you’re laying out here. I do think one interesting line of inquiry is whether we can really refer to political, philosophical, and religious beliefs as if they are truly distinct categories of thought that are independent of each other but then converge in an idea like separation of church and state. Is one of those sets of beliefs or a particular subset of one categories of beliefs dominant and controlling (logically) of the other veins of thought, or is the struggle to maintain them as logically independent but some how congruent?
I think one of the realities of the contemporary political and religious situation is that the strains are maintained too distinctly, and that practice invites incongruence on the pop-political/folk-religious levels.
In other words, I might be (and think I am) in favor of the separation of church and state (policy) but I’m not sure if I’m in favor of the separation of political and religious thought, at least for those of us whose would give some sort of primacy to our religious convictions.
(I recognize that line of inquiry is bound up in the epistemological debate between foundationalist and coherentist lines of thought. I think it’s worth mentioning as part of this conversation though, because such a discussion sheds light on both the comments of your classmates and your own description of how you reach your own conclusions of separation of C&S.)
That is a very good observation, Steven.
I think that political, philosophical, and religious thought represent distinct and different ways of analyzing and understanding the world. We could also throw in others like scientific (but it has less relevance in this particular discussion). All of these sources of input merge together to form a person’s overall worldview, and when a person considers a particular issue (like church-state), that individual will use a combination of different sources to create a position.
I don’t think you can say that any one of the elements necessarily has overall “primacy,” because they all have their distinct realms of applicability. I understand that many are drawn to the idea that religion should always play a primary role in thought-formation, but that becomes extremely problematic with some elements, such as scientific analysis (historically, the Bible hasn’t meshed very well with scientific progress).
Additionally, I do not think it is possible to avoid a separation of political and religious thought. Even in all-out theocracies, political concerns have always been separate from and competitive with religious ones.
I am curious how you can hold what may appear to be contradictory opinions in this case: you are in favor of separation of church and state in policy, but not in thought. Doesn’t that create dissonance between what you think and what you think should be policy? If so, then that is exactly what I am talking about with having different kinds of thought in political and religious contexts.
I’ve come to the conclusion in the last five years or so that conservatism as practiced by 99% of self-described conservatives would be more accurately described as tribalism. It’s almost always about demarcating your tribe, and having done so, defending it in every single conceivable situation.
I’m a liberal and I have convictions.
In most cases however, they are based on the simple observation that we don’t live in the dualistic world that characterizes the conservative world view.
For example: Liberals believe that all persons, regardless of their religious convictions should be treated with respect and that their views should be protected under establishment clause of the constitution.
Many conservatives I know believe that there is a “right way” to know God. It follows that the “wrong ways” to knowing God are dangerous and not worthy of protection.
You can make the same argument for race, sexual orientation or (in extreme cases) political ideology.
Reducing a complex ideology to a statement that can appear on a bumper sticker or babbled into a talk show microphone is characteristic of somebody who is not really interested in doing any real thinking anyway.
separation of “church and state” is a lovely concept. however, a nation that turns its back is headed down the toilet.
kind regards,
paul
i meant to say “turns its back on God”
Perhaps, but I don’t think anyone here advocates the U.S. “[turning] its back on God.” We’re calling for toleration and protection of religious pluralism.
We’re advocating that the State turn its back on dogma and religious exclusivity.
It would be a faulty causation claim to say that the separation of Church and State leads to a godless nation heading down the toilet.
I, personally, would love to see America turn its back on God. Would God get offended? If so, how would He show it? The possibilites are endless.
David, thanks for engaging the conversation. I’ve been trained more in the theological side of the conversation, so having someone versed in the political thought aspect is helpful to me as I continue to think this stuff through. Help me correct my errant political thoughts where you find them (not sarcastic).
Resolving the conflict you note between my apparently contradictory position.
A. Your observation that “Even in all-out theocracies, political concerns have always been separate from and competitive with religious ones” is a key issue here, particularly the idea that the two sets of concerns compete. If we agree that the two sets of concerns are necessarily competitive, then it seems there is a serious probability of loyalty to either state or the church. But what kind of competition are we thinking about?
In my mind (and my thought is still developing here) the church and the state operate, ideally, on two different premises. The state seeks primarily to protect the rights, property, and interests of its citizenry. Agents of that State necessarily are committed on some level to a philosophy of how that protection is best procured and are committed to gaining or perpetuating power for agents (themselves or like-minded persons) who will enact that vision of the State. Agents of the state and thus the state itself, primarily must promote the security of the state, since the state’s existence and security are seen as conditions for the perpetuation of the rights of the individuals whom it protects. There may be some debate about a more liberal government philosophy, but eventually a reformed liberal democracy still seeks to perpetuate the power of the (democratic) state. Weigh those thoughts, and fire away.
The Church on the other hand, doesn’t arise out of the interests of it’s constituents (although we act like it sometimes) or it’s human leaders (ditto). It shouldn’t primarily seek to perpetuate itself, but to faithfully represent God’s kingdom in a concrete way through time.
I believe that faithfulness to the vision of God’s kingdom as Jesus proclaimed it entails a primary commitment to becoming a community that seeks not our own individual interests, but the interests of others, to claim a vision of love that is not self-seeking and which loves our neighbors as we love ourselves. The leaders of the church, therefore, seek not to perpetuate a system by which the interests of those within the church are protected, but a community of people whose priorities are not determined by their own self-interests.
B. In praxis, concerning an issue such as aid to an impoverished people-group outside our own nation, the two groups might reach the same conclusion, but through different means. The Church should conclude to offer its own resources (even to the point of sacrifice) as a means of fulfilling its kingdom value of love.
The state must weight the issue not on the basis of compassion, but on terms of its own self-interest. It knows that to allow suffering in other parts of the world may foster violence, terrorism, or environmental consequences; in other words: threats to its own interests. Or, it may decide that Aid programs build alliances, create favorable economic conditions, or preserve hegemony by which it retains a greater likelihood to preserve its own self-interests. Of course, it might alternatively decide that such Aid (or a large degree of aid) may produce results counter to its own interests. Such a case demonstrates the kind of competition we are talking about, but other cases such as questions of military conflict, boundaries for deviant behavior, or other issues could also be played out.
C. As a person who is both a participant in the church and a citizen in the state, I must decide which of the two thought processes is dominant to me, particularly in situations where the two values compete. I can get away with sharing them both for a while until they come in conflict, but when they do, two things become apparent, which really are the point of this post which has grown too long.
1. The church and state separation serves the purposes of each entity because it preserves their integrity. So as a member of the Church I want that separation to be maintained so that the church isn’t duped into advocating or supporting positions that are antithetical to its values, i.e. positions based on the interests of the state. The thinking of the state threatens the integrity of the church. Likewise, the state cannot adopt the assumptions/values/warrants of the church, or it will fail to preserve the interests of its citizens. Thus the thinking of the church threatens the security of the state. Separation necessarily serves the interests of both.
2. Because of their competitive nature, I do think that you either have to have to put priority to one of the value systems or develop a pretty creative synthesis that breaks the boundaries of the mutually exclusive interests outlined above. I think doing so with a high degree of intellectual honesty is very difficulty. Or, the way I deal with the tension now is to allow my religious convictions, or better my allegiance to the kingdom of God, to provide a boundary for my participation as a citizen of a particular state. Thus my political thinking reflects, not a distinct thought, but a set of political implications of my religious thought. If I attempted to think politically in a way distinctly from my religious convictions, I would be doing so from a set of understandings or warrants (the state perspective above) that are counter to my convictions about the kingdom of God, a position that seems intellectually dishonest.
Sorry that ran so long.
-stevepvc
stevepvc: Thank you very much for your insight and your careful analysis here. We really appreciate this kind of intellectual discource. Now…
It seems as though you are uncomfortable with separating your own beliefs into different categories. You want to be consistent and think that right/wrong should translate to legal/illegal. I know you didn’t phrase it exactly like that, but is that a fair paraphrasing of your position?
I do not think it is intellectually dishonest to have different standards of what is appropriate in different circumstances. In our obsession with consistency, we forget that it is often appropriate to change attitudes, actions, or even beliefs according to the circumstances. Even the apostles and Jesus show examples of this.
When we think abstractly and religiously, it is fine to quote scripture and to use religious reasoning to discuss issues. It is also appropriate to use them in a private context such as in the home or in a church. In fact, many people live their own personal lives primarily according to their religious beliefs, and that is great.
We have severe problems, though, when those personal convictions and beliefs are transplanted into the public political sphere. As you said, the job of the political system is to protect rights, property, etc. But how does our society decide what rights deserve protection? How about which rights mandate protection? What about gay rights, reproductive rights, and privacy rights? What about the right to blaspheme Jesus Christ?
Perhaps the last one provides the best example of a stark conflict between what a typical Christian believes is right vs. wrong and what a liberal tolerant democracy should allow. Even if we could resolve what the Christian answer to the rest of society’s problems is, it still wouldn’t be right to enforce that on the country through political power. We cannot simply transplant our own interpretations of right/wrong (even if they are well-supported by Biblical arguments) and make those into legal/illegal in the political world.
In your very last point, you said that “you either have to have to put priority to one of the value systems or develop a pretty creative synthesis that breaks the boundaries…” I don’t think the boundaries are that difficult to draw. Religion is a personal endeavor and each person is ultimately free (in the freewill sense) to decide what they believe. Politics is the public and the legal realm. When we talk about laws that ban gay marriage or laws that outlaw sodomy, we all know that we are in the territory of politics, not religion. I do not think it is legitimate to use religious rationales for public policy. We can use other sources to decide what should be legal and illegal without using religion. Universal laws, categorical imperatives, social contracts, and utilitarianism are much better sources of rationales for laws in the political realm. Those are things that many more people can agree on and they provide universal standards that are best for a stable society that can at the same time be tolerant of different people and different faiths.
adopted: I have heard this kind of rhetoric many times before from my evangelical friends. However, this theory does not seem to be borne out in history, nor does it make sense with any kind of modern view of God.
Yes, ancient people believed that everything was caused by the god or gods. If it rains, God sent the rain; if it doesn’t rain, God held the rain back. If our country prospers, God is blessing it; if our country collapses, God was angry with us. You cannot transplant that archaic theology to our geopolitical system today.
In fact, I would directly contradict your argument by saying that we put our liberal democracy in mortal danger if we try to further integrate church and state. We as citizens have nothing to fear from a secular, tolerant government, but we have much to fear from a religiously-dominated, intolerant one.
This is a great discussion.
I have nothing to add except…”No one expects the Inquisition!”
(in proper accent)
I’ve got a few respones.
First, A quote from John Stuart Mill:
To whatever god a person so chooses to worship, let that be his decision. To whomever he calls lover, let it be the same. To interpose a set of beliefs, morals, or ethics between a person and his/her choice is an infringement upon the liberty of consciousness and the freedom of people to choose what is best for them. There must be a legitimate state interest (the welfare of society) to justify intervention into private life. If the state were to adopt a set of exclusive beliefs, such as Christian morals — which, might I add, differ greatly amongst different sects and denominations — it would inevitably infringe upon a certain individual an unjustified amount of regulation and power. The two must be separate.
So, if you ascribe to the basic tenets of a liberal democracy, your participation should be rather limited, right? Or is it possible to live a life devoted to a certain set of beliefs, while at the same time being tolerant of others, neither aiding nor restricting their freedom of consciousness to worship another god, or no god at all?
What I am saying is that the values don’t have to compete, unless you want them to. Unless you see religious toleration as a decadent practice, there’s no need to impose your set of beliefs on another person.
With that said, there’s nothing stopping you from engaging another person in open debate, challenging their set of beliefs. Nor is there anything stopping you from promoting your beliefs to the general public. This “freedom of speech” is one of the basic tenets of a liberal democracy and is inextricably linked to the freedom of conscious, and thus a freedom to choose a religion or no religion at all.
To impose an exclusive set of beliefs is nothing short of draconian and antithetical to everything society has strove for over the centuries of human development.
Putting priority in a freedom of choice keeps the interest exclusive and turns your last argument that…
Coexistence is not only possible, it’s preferable. However, Religion and State ought to be mutually exclusive. Putting priority to the values of a free state ensures the right to be religiously free, an imperative to any viable society.
I just wrote a treatise here. Unfortunately my computer battery died without warning just before I submitted it.
It was so thorough.
I’m going to go to bed and cry now.
I’ll not be able to repost my thoughts until at least friday. I am still engaged in this conversation, though.
Haha, okay. Sorry about your battery.
I do appreciate your input into this conversation because it is very rational and interesting. Most people whom I have met on the other side of this issue resort to simplistic appeals and catch phrases.