13 Sep 2000
rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller)
Freedom From Religion, ÁSi!
"The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from
religion," Senator Joseph Lieberman told a rapturous audience at a black
church a few Sundays ago, just after being chosen as Al Gore's running
mate. Given that the whole purpose of Lieberman's nomination was to
detach Gore from Clinton's scandals by public displays of family values
and sanctimoniousness, you can't blame him for starting right in--and so
far the gambit seems to be working (Monica who?). Still, you would think
the first Jewish major-party VP candidate in US history might hesitate to
cast to the winds the traditional secularism of American Jews. And that's
what the Anti-Defamation League thought too, rebuking Lieberman for
excessive use of "expressions of faith." After all, right-wing Christians
are the 800-pound gorilla of US church-state relations today, and given
their triumphalism--"every knee shall bow" and all that--does one really
need to encourage them? When a Jew endorses, or seems to endorse, an
intrusive public role for religion, the Christian right is inoculated from
charges of bigotry. No wonder Lieberman has drawn praise from Jerry
Falwell and Jewish-banker-conspiracy fan Pat Robertson--even though, of
course, they know he's going to hell for refusing to accept Christ as his
personal savior.
But that's the official American civic religion at the opening of the
twenty-first century: What religion you have may be your own
business--rather literally so, in the case of Scientology--but it's
society's business that you have one. Modernity may have eroded some of
the distinctions between previously antagonistic belief systems--Quick!
Explain the difference between Presbyterianism and Methodism!--as is
suggested by the increasing replacement of the word "religion," with its
connotations of dogma and in-groupness, by the warm, fuzzy propaganda term
"faith." Facing the common enemy, secularism, devout Christians and Jews
dwell lovingly on their similarities as part of a "Judeo-Christian" ethos,
when historically the ethos of each faith was precisely that it wasn't the
other--as Jews were recently reminded by the Pope's shameful beatification
of Pius IX, a reactionary anti-Semite who not only forced Rome's Jews into
a ghetto but virtually kidnapped a Jewish child secretly baptized by a
servant and refused to return him to his family despite years of
international protest.
In fact, Lieberman is wrong about the Constitution--it does protect us
from religion. In their useful book The Godless Constitution, Isaac
Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore remind us that the Founding Fathers
carefully considered and rejected the idea of inserting religious language
into the Constitution: "The nation's founders, both in writing the
Constitution and in defending it in the ratification debates, sought to
separate the operations of government from any claim that human beings can
know and follow divine direction in reaching policy decisions." The
Constitution specifically prohibits religious tests for political office;
evidently Washington, Madison and Jefferson did not think civic virtue
required belief in God.
Still less did they sympathize with Bible-based
politics. Looking for political guidance in the Bible is like looking for
it in the entrails of birds--you can always find what you want if you
squint hard enough. Think of abortion, about which neither testament has a
single word to say, yet both anti-choicers and pro-choicers claim
religious justification for their positions. Lieberman thinks Gore's
prescription drug proposal for seniors fulfills the commandment to honor
thy father and mother; someone else might argue that God wants you to
honor them by buying their medications yourself, or by putting them out on
an ice floe to re-enter the cycle of nature. Since every position can
find a godly rationale, bringing religion into the public sphere in
practice simply means that the biggest and best organized religion gets to
use the public realm--public facilities, public money--to advance its own
sectarian agenda.
Consider some of the recent entanglements of church and state. Last June
the House passed and sent on to the Senate the Noncommercial Broadcasting
Freedom of Expression Act, which would permit religious organizations to
purchase noncommercial radio stations and substitute religious for
educational programming. "Charitable choice" legislation, supported by
both Bush and Gore, not to mention a muddled opinion piece in The Nation,
would permit religious organizations to bid for federal contracts to
deliver a wide range of social services--antidrug programs, literacy
programs, marriage preservation, housing--while permitting them to hire,
fire and dispense services according to their religious dictates. Already
permitted in welfare-to-work programs, charitable choice is under legal
assault in Texas, where Jews and civil rights advocates have charged one
church-based program with giving Bible classes, urging clients to build a
personal relationship with Jesus and offering a course titled, "Who's the
Boss? All Authority Comes from God."
Because the most energetic religions tend to be the ones most invested in
keeping women subordinate, women in particular have nothing to gain from
the burgeoning involvement of religion in the public sphere. The wave of
mergers between Catholic and secular hospitals is already depriving women
of crucial reproductive services, from contraception and abortion to in
vitro fertilization and the morning-after pill, even for rape victims.
Indeed, wherever you look, religion is the main obstacle to providing
women with modern reproductive healthcare: The fig leaf of "conscience"
becomes a justification for denying others basic human services. Thus the
Catholic Church throws its weight against making health insurers cover
contraception (Viagra's fine, though) and anti-choice pharmacists claim
the right to refuse to dispense birth control, emergency contraception or,
should it be approved by the FDA, RU-486. What about the idea that if my
"conscience" doesn't permit me to do my job, maybe I'm in the wrong line
of work? Would an orthodox Jew take a job at Virgil's Barbecue and then
refuse to serve the pork ribs? Maybe Lieberman will give us his views on
the matter. But I hope he doesn't.
http://www.thenation.com:80/issue/000918/0918pollitt.shtml
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
KATHA POLLITT
The Nation
September 18/25, 2000
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.