Secular laws trump religious.
Seven Taboo Political Subjects #2:
The Politics:
Can you imagine a politician proclaiming, “Let’s remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance”? Or “Only Christians should be allowed to serve in Congress”? Or, “Tax deductible churches are an anathema to democracy”
The Reality:
The debate over the role of religion in government predates the American Revolution. After much heated compromise, the founding fathers decided to leave religion out of the political process, effectively putting the governing needs of a secular society first. While some states and the occasional Supreme Court decision occasionally backslide, we are overwhelmingly a country of secular laws.
America is a nation of Christians, but not a Christian nation. Religion and governing each inhabit their own spheres of influence- morality and the promise of heaven for religion, politics, and civil law for government. As Madison remarked in 1822 letter to Edward Livingston “And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together”
Yet the peer pressure towards religious deference is strong- only a few congressmen are brave enough to admit they are agnostics, while the “NO” religion (nearly 25%) is the fastest growing belief system in the country.
To the greatest extent possible in a vibrant democracy all personal beliefs compete on an equal footing, and unlike a theocracy, there is no litmus test to which a “true” religion must pass. In a theocracy (like Israel or India) religious groups enjoy special privileges. A stunningly incompatible policy in a democracy where all citizens are equal before the law.
An individual’s private beliefs are immutable, and cannot be infringed by any person or government. We protect them with the first, fourth and fifth amendments and various privacy statutes. But, public ACTIONS are subject to the rule of law, which enables millions of different beliefs to coexist in harmony.
If a religion prevents a child from receiving lifesaving treatment, the safety of the child trumps the religious dictates of their sect. If a clan insists their members shun all non-white races, they are free to live in a white-only compound but must serve ALL ethnic groups equally at work. A temple must open its doors to a search warrant.
Given that everyone holds some truths sacred, all that matters in a democracy is how we agree to equally balance everyone’s beliefs in the public square. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Yet the edges fray.
Too many laws and too much deference extends private beliefs towards dictating public behavior. For example, should Christians grant their employees access to birth control insurance? Their personal distaste for family planning may be sacred, but so are their employee’s equally valid perspective that birth control is a right. This slippery slope is well greased- can you be fired for buying birth control with your own savings? Then why not with your salary? Or with salary benefits like insurance?
Respecting all beliefs guarantees you will hear things you disagree with, be forced to work with people you despise, and have some of your economic output spent on programs you disagree with. Get over it. It is the cost of social harmony, and a cost easily born if your own beliefs are strongly held.
Yet politicians are afraid of blowback if they publicly endorsed this bedrock democratic principle, and put the secular first.
Not all politicians. Note Ulysses S Grant’s 7th Address to Congress “I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation”
For a nuanced discussion of the tangled emergence of secularism, see this excellent historical review at the Library of Congress
Click on any topic to learn more:
