Separation No Longer
by Chris Van Vechten
It’s time we be held accountable for our arrogance in the 1990s. By insisting on a strict embargo on religion in any state institution, we in the secular community left a significant segment of our society without a leg to stand on or a culture to connect with. The result of this marginalization was the creation of a sub-United States, complete with its own institutions and infrastructure.
It was here, in the sub-America, where believers fell prey to radical demagogues who used ACLU objections to trivial quibbles like Christmas trees in public schools and nativity scenes on public property to convince otherwise rational Americans that the Christian faith – and by extension the country itself – was under assault. Overtime, these radical groups developed significant bases from which they plotted to “take back the country for Christ.” I know, having lived through it as a student in an evangelical school system.
Now, in the final days of the Bush Administration (an unauthentic evangelical administration, but perhaps the closest thing we’ve ever had), 75% of Americans realize just how devastating these ideas have been for the country, indeed the world. But don’t think for a second that the religious Right is solely to blame for this.
The radical Left was also given too much ear in the years leading up to this mess too. Would it have really killed anyone to let a nativity scene be erected on public property during the holidays? To put a Christmas tree in a public school? Hang the Ten Commandments in a classroom? Allow individual teachers the option of beginning class with a five-minute prayer? Perhaps if we on the Left had conceded these ceremonies to the religious Right, there wouldn’t have been this great sense of dejectedness in their community. The belief that the country had been “lost” might not have been so strong for them.
My hope is that, if/when Obama becomes president, he will work to find ways to bring Evangelicals into the mainstream community (his endorsement of the Faith-Based Initiative is an imperfect start.) This is not to say that there are policies which could prove disastrous if he conceded, but hopefully we can come to a point where we have legitimate discussions and exchanges of worldviews. Is it possible to debate gridlock issues like abortion with less rhetoric and more reason? I think so, despite the cynicism I expressed earlier this month.
For myself, I’m going to start making a point to talk to the people I had previously dismissed as “crazy” and see if we can’t find some common ground.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The thing about “giving” religious folks things like the 10 Commandments in classrooms (or courtrooms) is that they don’t see it as we, the benevolent secularists, bestowing upon them permission to express themselves. Nope. They feel entitled to it.
Entitlement, you see? It’s a slippery slope, because while I agree that allowing 5 minute prayer in some classrooms is not a big deal for people who choose to partake of it, my fear is that such a thing will be used as justification to expand their influence. They get the religious freedom they are entitled to, yes, and then they get to start teasing the kids who don’t pray, and then they get to harass the kids who don’t pray, and so on…because conservative religions do not think that ideas other than their own are valid. They feel entitled to push that upon everyone else; in fact, God orders them to do so.
If including their contributions – and I agree that it would be foolish for Obama not to take their desires into account – were limited to a sharing of different perspectives and goals, I would be all for it. But religious conservatives only use such attitudes as a springboard to devalue and attack other perspectives as “evil” or “sinful” and worthy of extermination. I refuse to feel bad for making them bewail their false martyrdom ( ex: “Oh, poor me! The government won’t punish gays for having sinful sex!”).
Reply
Chris Van Vechten Reply:
October 27th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
@Glynnis Kirchmeier, I’ve never believed it made sense to ban something for fear that some people might be teased. If our government chose to legislate by this logic then mullets and bow-ties would be outlawed.
I’m not saying Obama shouldn’t demand full equality for gay men and women and you are right that there will always be those in the evangelical community who will act as unreasonable zealots. There will always be, for example, people for whom it is not enough for schools to explain that abstinence is the only true “safe-sex” within the framework of a contraceptive-based health course. For them, it will always be abstinence only or nothing at all. But the evangelical base in America is 55 million strong at this point (making it a larger demographic than Blacks or Latinos, for example.) While they do share some common religious beliefs their attitude toward government is far from uniform. It is only by isolating them that otherwise even-keeled people become fanatics.
Remember, Evangelicals are Americans too. So are they wrong to feel entitled?
Reply
Glynnis Kirchmeier Reply:
October 27th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@Chris Van Vechten,
The problem with the teasing is that it becomes harassment and perhaps ostracization. And the problem with the entitlement is not that they should have their own opinions and religion – that’s fine – but that part of the tenets of their religion is restricting the rights of others. THAT is what they are not entitled to.
Reply
November 1st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
An informative article, Chris. Thanks. I like how you gave a general history, while not proclaiming that all Evangelical groups showed all these Evangelical symptoms.
I think the comments diverged from the article’s intent, which was to give a brief history of the emergence of Evangelicals and some of their activity and influence in the political arena. That being said, no tenets of Christianity and/or Evangelicals restrict the rights of others. Only when these tenets (ie. praying to God) are fought for as a special interest without regard to other religions which our Constitution protects just as fully as Christianity that self-righteousness and a sense of entitlement enter the picture. The Supreme Court has rightly ruled that (in some instances) the ten commandments can be posted alongside other historical and religious documents which have influenced the US, but it cannot stand alone like it wields power above other documents. So also, Evangelicals should–and many do–coexist peacefully alongside other religions, receiving their religious rights as Americans, while not elevating their religion above other faiths, which should receive just as much protection as they from government intrusion (the originally meaning of separating the state from the church).
And I have seen too many engaging, scholarly discussions between Muslim, Jewish, and Christian leaders to not disagree with the comment that “conservative religions do not think ideas other than their own are valid.” Everyone can be pig-headed about what they think is correct concerning both religion and politics, evangelicals and secular humanists included.
Reply
Rachel King Reply:
November 1st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Apparently, I only read page one before I commented. : ) Two and three are good too, except that I think it naive that you, Chris, think evangelicals (one group promoting their agenda) and secular humanists (another group promoting their agenda) will get along on tradition and belief-steeped issues like posting the ten commandments and having Christmas trees (It’s like you said in your abortion article: two different worldviews butting heads). The whole point is that these issues are TRIVIAL, but evangelicals and secular humanists can agree (though based on different premises) that America should support such diverse causes as ending the sex slave trade or being more environmentally conscious. In issues like these they could agree and actually make a real difference for people and places that a slab of wood or a bed of straw could not.
Reply