I have said for some time now that religion does not respect boundaries, that it is about power and control, and that the ideal of freedom of religion is deeply flawed. Imagine, then, my reading Shadia Drury’s Op-Ed piece in the current issue of Free Inquiry, entitled “Is freedom of religion a mistake?” This is first paragraph of her Op-Ed:
Freedom of religion is a hard-core American value that is rarely questioned. It was supposed to be the ultimate solution to the grisly wars of religion that ravaged Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But religion is rarely satisfied with liberty. It invariably seeks dominance. It is akin to a wild beast that cannot be tamed; the brute is always there and ready to turn on its benefactor. [19]
The pull-quote on the page is this:
… Religion is rarely satisfied with liberty. It invariably seeks dominance.”
Well, you can’t say truer than that. Religion does not respect boundaries. It is about power and control, and will not be content until it achieves it. Religious people are jealous of every sign that other religions are being more successful than theirs, and they will do everything possible to compete for dominance. The ultimate dominance, of course, is control over the springs of political power.
It is not for nothing that the Roman Catholic Church has had a hissy fit about the American Department of Health and Human Services announcement that all institutions funded by the federal government will be required to make contraception and other reproductive services a required part of health insurance for employees. The conference of bishops immediately issued their non placet, and had their obedient lackeys out in force to reinforce the bishops’ hold on political power, showing that, by fair means or foul, they were quite prepared to force the government to back down on something that was not only a just demand attached to federal funding of sectarian institutions, but to acknowledge the right of the church to govern itself by a law of its own, without appeal to the law of the state. This was, undoubtedly, the primary reason for a response which was completely out of proportion to any offence that could be thought to have been caused, and it was based, almost exclusively, on a supposed right to freedom of religion.
But freedom of religion was never supposed to create conditions in which religious institutions should be recognised as a law unto themselves, such that they could subvert state law in favour of their own governing principles. The point of freedom of religion, as Shadia Drury points out, was to short-circuit the forces which led to civil unrest and the wars of religion in the 16th and 17th centuries. In the course of making her point, Ms Drury puts her finger on the nub of the issue. Who shall be in charge: the church or the state? The Reformation settlement in Britain, in terms of which the church became subject to the crown, as the head of the church, rather surprisingly prepared the ground, in the end, for a subordination of religion and religious law to the state and state law. As Drury puts it, reflecting on the separation of church and state in the United States:
The state is prohibited from interfering in religious faith by creating an established church akin to the Church of England, which was established by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I as a means of preventing the Catholic Church from making the states of Europe the … instruments of its nefarious commands: Kill these heretics! Segregate these Jews! Burn these witches! The newly established church was subordinate to the Crown — and still is. In contrast, American churches are free. It is no wonder that they are so much admired by the pope, who applauds the way they use their freedom to reestablish the dominion over the state that he believes is rightfully theirs. [19]
Drury does not make her point clear. It seems, at first glance, that her reference to the church by law established in Britain is made in a critical spirit; on the other hand, it seems that having an established church has made it less likely that religion will be tangled up in the nations affairs, since the church is subordinate to the state (the Crown), and responsible to it. Like the old saw — “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” — the church, while having a modicum of influence of power in governance through the “Lords Spiritual” in the House of Lords, is also required to argue for its position, and cannot, in the end, play a dominant role in matters of law and state policy. In the United States, on the other hand, by being free, churches are able, by competing in the political market place, to exercise a control over government that can only be dreamed of by successive archbishops at Lambeth. Religious influence is at one more general and more insidious. It is less able to be checked, for freedom of religion seems to imply that, in the absence of an established religion, those who aspire to political office can use religion to attract votes, and even, it seems, to demolish basic principles of democracy in their quest for power.
As Drury says, “there is nothing in the [American] Constitution that requires the state to be secular.” (44) The clause that states that there shall be no establishment of religion does not support secularism, she points out, but nonsectarianism, which turns out to be a very different thing. Indeed, she carries on from this point to show that, in fact, the founding fathers of the republic, though they were enlightenment men at heart, also had a fairly soft spot for biblical iconology, and thought of the American Republic in terms of election and destiny, even going so far as to say that
Faith in America’s election was not restricted to radical Puritans or supposedly enlightened Founding Fathers. It is still rampant among the staunchest American Atheists. [45]
Regarding the latter point, I do not have evidence either way; those who know will have to judge whether what Drury says is right on this point. However, the point she draws from this, I think, is probably a valid one:
… if the freedom of religion is to be renegotiated [as she thinks it must be], then both sides must respect the wall of separation. The wall of separation must be understood as a pact of mutual forbearance and non-interference that goes both ways. The state offers the churches freedom, but in exchange, the churches must mind their own business where political affairs are concerned. [45]
About the likelihood of that I am not in a position to comment, though it seems, on the face of it, unlikely. The American civil religion, upon which the doctrine or idea of election is premised, is too intermeshed with the sectarian religious beliefs of Americans for it to be abandoned in favour of an effective wall of separation. Indeed, most Americans doubtless think that the possibility of founding a state on secular principles is doomed from the start, since many have no (or very little) conception of the possibility of founding a nation as a moral community of equals on anything less than belief in God and that god’s purposes for the nation. How this interdependence of religion with the American sense of being a light to the nations, with a mission to bring freedom to others in favour of a secular America, can be undone, is very difficult to see. But until the divorce is made, religious imperatives will continue to be central to the American political consciousness, and Catholic bishops and Southern Baptists and other religionists will continue to play a central role in determining the outcome of elections, and the making of law. And with the marked intrusion of other religions and their priorities into the American political landscape, the urgency of making this separation becomes even more important. What part the new atheists can play in this process is still undetermined, but it is of enormous importance that American atheists be clear that the wall of separation between religion and the state is of crucial importance to those who do not wish to be governed by religious laws and priorities.
Unfortunately, a reconsideration and legal strengthening of the separation is unlikely. I’m afraid we will be burdened with firefights along the skirmish line for a very long time. I support Barry Lynn’s organization, AU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
I think it is a little accusatory to say that all religion desires dominance. While I agree the most popular and powerful ones certainly do, religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and certain Pagan sects are quite non-dominant, often even in practice.
I have always been intrigued by the seeming paradox presented by the secular US constitution and the success of religion in the US. Most European countries have some kind of established Church and various vestiges of Church-State entanglement, yet Europeans are far less religious. Maybe it would be better for the US to get itself an established Church, run by out of touch buffoons that no-one takes seriously.
Now that would be an interesting process – deciding which church to establish…8-)
Drury explains exactly how I think the separation of church and state must be. The state may not make laws that single out particular religions solely on their affiliation, and the churches may not use the state to promote their purely religious motives. There can be no effective separation without both.
Practically all the US founding fathers were Deists, so I have a hard time believing they ever intended the First Amendment to be a provision for the religious to completely ignore the law of the land. Make no mistake, if revelation based motivations can be used to override the secular government, there is a gaping loophole that makes a privileged group completely immune to its laws. To accuse the Founding Fathers of deliberately creating such a loophole is to accuse them of crass stupidity.
The Supreme Court rulings on discrimination laws and providing contraception for religious institutions are very contrary to such an understanding of the first amendment, much to my dismay. It seems we are doomed to lose a lot of ground before we can reclaim any.
There are some religious people who understand that the separation is important in both directions, for both the believing and unbelieving alike. They have the foresight to see what can happen to them once other minorities are sufficiently dealt with. There will be nothing preventing the tyranny from turning back on them. After all, separation in “just one direction” is not separate at all.
I don’t really know the details but I assume the matter of secularism comes under the terms and conditions of state funding, as it should. If the state is to fund a religious organization, then essentially that religious organization must abide by secular principles.
Since I live in a country with state education and a state health service (although ironically the state establishes a religion), I am naturally of the opinion that these are essentially matters of the state, and are state responsibility and don’t belong in the hands of the church.
We don’t consider the military as a matter for the church to deal with, nor any other department of the state, or at least it is madness to even consider such a thing.
Another great post, Eric, thank you. Even as social conservatives try to “re-open” (as if it were ever “closed”) the abortion debate in my own country, it becomes clear that they use the guise of secular liberalism (wherein each individual has the right to have his or her voice heard) to impose their own version of morality on all others (certainly not a secular liberal cause). When one considers the considerable tax exemptions enjoyed by religious institutions (ostensibly to allow these organizations to serve a public good, like charity works), the entanglement becomes frightening. How much lobbying are churches (especially the Catholic one) able to do solely by diverting funds saved from tax exemption to lobby efforts? Further, it speaks to your disquiet, I believe, in voting for a Catholic politician ( http://choiceindying.com/2012/05/04/the-canadian-federation-and-the-virus-of-faith/ ) considering the huge censure these organizations place on their members to conform. Therein lies the paradox of liberalism, its commitment to openness and individual conscience is immediately at odds with the assumption (by the religious) of moral certainty and the devaluation of the individual as independent moral agent. I certainly have no solution, though I continue to ponder…
freeze43. Of course it’s accusatory. It’s meant to be. And, indeed, if you have any acquaintance with Hinduism in India, you’ll find the urge to dominance quite well developed. Considering Buddhism, are you aware of the role that Japanese Buddhism played in the Second World War? Buddhism as known in the West certainly seems to be peaceable enough, but it follows true to form in its tendency towards dominance in the East. As to paganism — well, modern paganism is an insignificant force. Had it numbers enough and time, it would no doubt run true to form as well.
Pingback: Religion “a wild beast that cannot be tamed” « Choice in Dying « Secularity
I am aware of how Shinto-Buddhism managed to convince fighter pilots that death was a teneable option. However “pure” buddhism doesn’t really have the same power (which is probably why it is not as powerful).
I agree there is a natural tendency for religions to try and overwhelm others, but due to the cultural entrenchment this has historically been physical (I’ve wrote a blog on this I think).
I’m a little uncertain as to what “strengthened seperation” would entail. I would also suggest that by allowing religious groups to have their hissy fits is a good thing- the mantle of halting reproductive freedoms was derided not only by those outside the church, but by 97% of the women inside the church, already using contraception.
These shrill assertions point out just how out of touch religious organisations are. And if people believe them? Well, unfortunately it is not our place to say that they can’t.
The free exercise clause of the First Amendment grants wide latitude to the conduct of religious organizations, particularly with respect to civil rights. Churches are permitted to deny equal treatment to women and racial minorities as a matter of policy, but businesses and other public entities can only do so as a matter of custom or common practice, without notably dissimilar outcomes.
The Catholic Church, when dealing with sexual matters, whether the criminal perpetration of child abuse by its priests or the legal use of contraception by its employees, appears to consider itself beyond the reach of secular authority (or even science, at times). It’s slowly learning that it isn’t.
So long as the American people are generally religious, there will be a bias against practices which conflict with beliefs held by a plurality of the public. The establishment clause has operated as a ratchet to restrict at least some abuses, but most of the progress that has been made (and it is considerable) has been in changing public opinion. In my lifetime divorce has been rendered uncontroversial, contraception has become routine, and abortion and homosexuality are widely accepted. White men still rule the roost, but most major nations by now have had well-respected leaders who broke the pattern. Religion has been largely irrelevant to this process…
But many of the prominent religious figures of the States are buffoons already, and still they are taken seriously.
It’s not that religions WANT to achieve domination, it’s that they believe they already have it, and merely want it to be recognised. Since nobody wants to go to Hell, persuading people of the correct way to think and behave should be merely a matter of informing them about the facts. If they don’t want to see the facts then they must be mad, or deluded, and any kind of method of getting past us is valid. (We have one theist at FRDB who’s been telling us ‘the simple facts’ for four years now. He just can’t get his head around the notion that ‘Because I say so’ is not a convincing reason to believe something.)
Theists who see ANY irrational beliefs getting privileged treatment — and there are still innumerable instances in our society where this happens — will take that as a crack they can lever open to cram in all kinds of dangerous nonsense.
The price of reason is eternal vigilance.
Buddhism as known in the West certainly seems to be peaceable enough, but it follows true to form in its tendency towards dominance in the East.
I keep harping on this Eric, but you keep doing it. You are not thinking carefully about causation (and it seems to me, at this point, that you do not care to be). If Buddhism can be either peaceful or dominant depending on where and by whom it is expressed, then it cannot be Buddhism itself (or religion itself) that is necessarily dominance-seeking. You saying that peaceful Buddhism is not Buddhism in its true form is simply a No true Scotsman fallacy you’ve used to rationalize the fact that your claim has been falsified.
One of the ways in which you’ve oversimplified things is by talking about religion as if it were one thing, and that the worst behavior of religious believers were representative of all. Religions do not seek dominance, people do. Ophelia would say the same. An abstract noun cannot do things. And once you focus on people, you must recognize that people are different, and that people believing in one religion in one place and time may be much less dominance-seeking than people believing in the same religion, but living in another place and time. The scientific (and rational) thing to ask is “what causes those differences,” and, “are the effects I’m imputing to ‘religion’ actually the result of something more specific?” Based on the evidence, the answer to the latter can only be yes.
Not to belabor the point, but here is something I wrote to a friend recently on the evils of religion:
Notice this allows for variation – it doesn’t happen this way 100% of the time, but there is a tendency for it to happen this way. And it is worth knowing why some humans will take advantage of that religious excuse to do bad things, and others won’t; most likely it has something to do with other personality traits – how much empathy a person posseses, how much cognitive dissonance they experience as a result of their conscience clashing with religious prescriptions, how much social support they receive to do the right or wrong thing, etc. It seems to me that if we do not talk about these factors, we may be missing something important. The most obvious point is that we are better able to combat something if we know what exactly causes it.
I have to take issue with this. Take Hinduism for example. Look to the activities of the Hindutvas in present day India and you’ll see unabashed fascism, with a desire to overturn the secular constitution and replace it with a form of cultural nationalism.
The historical predecessor to Hinduism, Vedic Brahmanism sought to impose itself on the sub-continent. History is written by the winners and there is a long tradition of rewriting it in India. There’s the institution of Varnashrama dharma, the caste system, a system of dominance.
You will have revisionists deny it, but varna is the Sanskrit word for colour, colour of the face, tribe, etc. based on context. This is a social system of apartheid. Your birth was your destiny, with the doctrine of Karma used as the justification to deny any social mobility. You have a priestly caste, Brahmins, at the top based on the idea that they were the only ones who understood the rituals that propitiated the gods, etc. Domination!
Look what happened in Tibet when the Buddhists had total control. Serfdom under a priestly class. The only reason it didn’t happen in other Asian countries likely to have been the competition.
I suppose you mean neo-pagans. Sure they tend to be mostly Earth-centred woo-meisters and don’t have the numbers to dominate anyone.
I’ve known some who certainly weren’t averse to talk about drastic measures that might need to be taken to ‘rescue Mother Earth and her Children’, and though only waffle it shows that neo-pagans aren’t immune to the kind of dodgy thinking that makes religions dangerous. They just happen to be pretty impotent.