Wading into the Minefield

It has been a long time since I've written, so it might seem imprudent to wade into William T. Barrante's polemic minefield on "Politics and Religion" [January 11]. However, it is always tempting to cross pens (or is it now that the keyboard is mightier than the sword?) with the sometimes "enlightened" but always articulate Mr. Barrante. In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and other enlightened thinkers, it is with pleasure and good humor that I rise to defend liberalism, secularism, pluralism and humanism from castigation by Mr. Barrante.

I do not wish to get caught up in the sectarian religious disputes, and like Mr. Barrante will focus instead on the place of religion in American life and on our esteemed founding father, Thomas Jefferson. As a liberal I will take heart in Mr. Barrante's view that prayer led by a teacher or school official, even a non-sectarian one, crosses the establishment boundary. However, when a student stands before the crowd at a high school football game to lead a prayer, they are in essence a school official, and in my view and the view of the courts have crossed the line. I do agree with Mr. Barrante that all public displays of religion do not constitute establishment, but reasonable people can discern and dispute the differences between establishment and non-establishment. To me there is nothing threatening about inviting a preacher to speak at a graduation—just as long as they're not saying mass.

As a liberal secularist I can live with what the Declaration of Independence says, but we do well to remember when it was written and what was epistemologically ascendant at the time. The very words "laws of Nature and Nature's God" are evidence that this document was a product of Enlightenment thought and rationalistic philosophy that valued, among other things, liberalism, progress and humanism—or "liberty, equality and fraternity," if you prefer. As such, these enlightened ideas and their relationship to the debate at hand should be explored.

It is ironic that Thomas Jefferson's most famous writing contains a reference to "Divine Providence," and even Mr. Barrante hints that others may have added it to the document. It would be interesting to review earlier drafts of the Declaration for the reference to Divine Providence. One should not be surprised if Jefferson did not write "Divine Providence" into the declaration since, like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, our third president was basically a Deist. However, Jefferson was not just a theorist; he saw the ideas as a means to accomplish an end. It is not unreasonable to suppose him willing to compromise, especially at such an important juncture in the struggle with the mother country.

One of the fundamental tenets of 18th century Deism was the rejection of specific and particular providence, and this would include Divine Providence. Instead they endorsed a complete naturalization of Providence and believed that true religion must be based on evidence and reason, and further believed that man independently of the word of God could come to know it. By deduction this implied that man could construct ethics without the aid of religion, an idea that still seems to give many discomfort.

To be sure, many founding fathers were Christian. However, by 1776 it was well understood that the word of God was at best subject to interpretation and probably not actually the word of God. Therefore it was decided that while we might be a nation under God, "God's law" was often not clear, so that while on Earth, we would be a nation governed by man's laws rooted in the 17th century rationalism and 18th century enlightenment.

It seems that Mr. Barrante is in agreement with liberal secularists in recognizing the need for the wall between church and state. What does it mean to keep church and state separate? By definition it means that the state is secular and, one might argue, non-religious. This leads to the question of which is ascendant, church or state? On this point there is no argument. This dispute was largely settled in Europe by the time of the Christian reformations. As the 18th century developed in Europe and in the less advanced U.S., it was understood that the secular state had to trump the church.

Another feature of Enlightenment thought is the idea of pluralism, particularly religious pluralism. Here again Mr. Barrante seems to support the liberal secular ideas firmly grounded in Enlightenment thought. The Patriarch of the Enlightenment himself, Voltaire, in 1734 espoused this view when he declared England superior to his own country because it tolerated several faiths, unlike the adherence to mono-religion endorsed by France. In Voltaire's view, an enlightened nation encourages a multiplicity of faiths. Voltaire viewed one religion as despotic and two religions as confrontational and at each other's throats. It is worth noting that at the time Voltaire wrote this, he was living in exile in England.

It is instructive to note that the antipathy toward enlightenment and liberal secular ideas help explain the attacks of last September. To those like the Taliban, who would use religious justification to control their populations, it is not our adherence to Judeo-Christian values or our martial success that is so offensive, but rather our reverence for liberalism, secularism and humanism that they find so threatening. The very ideas that Mr. Barrante seems to object to are the ones that must be defended in the current struggle between modernism and religious intolerance.

The aim of liberal secularism is not to drive religion out of the lives of average Americans or to force it underground; it is to keep church and state separate. The idea that secularists would want confine religion to home practice hardly seems credible or likely given the influence and reverence of religion in American life. The problem of religion in American life is not when children, on their own, pray alone or in groups; it is when we find justification of law and culture in the Bible and religious authority alone, and not in the laws of observed nature and the wisdom of man. We are in many ways the archetypal nation of modernity and liberalism that had the benefit of learning from the mistakes of earlier times when religious fanaticism and intolerance caused so much destruction. This is our heritage.

Mr. Barrante and I are probably in agreement over the idea that religion in this country is neither in danger of being extirpated or of becoming enshrined into law. Much of the debate over the role of religion is much ado about nothing, though it is always prudent to patrol along the wall. However, we should all be thankful for Enlightenment writers from Jefferson's time who saw the wisdom of creating a secure church-state firewall. It is through their efforts that we are able to have religious discussions in The Voice.