In order to further the discussion concerning the place of religion in American public and social life, I thought it might be important to state some things that those who are opposed to its presence could agree with. While mundane to the point of irrelevance to a certain extent, they at least allow a clearing space in order to move forward.
First, who would seriously disagree with the statement that there are elements and parts of broad belief system called Christianity that are detrimental to our public life? One need only consider the Christian Identity movement, its racism and penchant for violence, and the connections with this movement (considered in a braod sense) and the history of right-wing terrorism over the past two decades to see that pretty clearly. Since there is no way to definitively write these people out of Christian communion (as much as many might want to do), the only proper response is to admit that, yes, this is not just a problem, but a real and ever-present danger.
The militant anti-abortion movement also has the twin problems of seeing itself as based in the historic Christian faith and a penchant for terrorism and violence. 'Nuff said.
On a less violent note, we have the many-pronged assaults on education coming from those who call themselves Christian. Whether it is creationism attacking not just biology, but geology and even cosmology, or the effort to re-write American history (the latest salvo comes thanks to British blogger Archbishop Cranmer), the opponents of science and serious historical study rarely flag or allow little things like multiple defeats in courts to stop them from not allowing our children to learn.
There are the multiple assaults on our Constitutional freedoms, from prayer in public schools through publicly funded religious displays to the ridiculous issue of the Ten Commandments in a court of law. Again, like the constant attacks on education, this hydra-like phenomenon seems to grow two heads every time one is cut off by yet another court deicision.
These disparate phenomena are often conflated as part of a general phenomenon of Christian (sometimes also "religious") revanchism. I once even had to deal with someone who insisted that religious teaching that ran counter to science was a form of "child abuse". On that same theme, one could add other, more difficult issues. For example, when a Christian Science family refuses medical treatment for an ailing child. There have been cases where state agencies have attempted to intervene, forcing medical care on a child against the religious beliefs of the parents.
Since we are entering this murkier area where religious practice can potentially be seen as conflicting with certain social goods, we should consider three disparate religious groups whose social and public practice has created certain legal protections. Quakers, Amish, and Jehovah's Witnesses differ widely in their professed beliefs, yet all exist within special spheres in relation to the state due to their religious practices. Yet, the Amish and Witnesses also are opposed to the theory of evolution. Are to practice selective intervention, then, providing the Amish with their special communities outside the rest of their neighbors, while insisting their children learn Darwinian theory? Are Jehovah's Witnesses still to be free from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance even as they are forced to accept blood tranfusions to save their lives? Are Quakers to be forced in to the armed forces during national emergencies, their conscientious objection status set aside due to a serious national emergency?
At what point does the state set aside already-accepted constitutional protections to certain groups, including religious groups practicing their Constitutional freedom of religious belief and practice? Does the state have an overwhelming interest in intervening in the teachings of a religious community, if those teachings run counter to our current scientific understanding of the world? Certainly there are some who think so.
I think it is important to separate out these disparate phenomena into those that clearly violate the law or Constitutional norms, and those that are protected religious practices that, while not in concert with what are generally accepted social norms, nevertheless are protected by law. Lumping them all together as part of "religious" or "Christian" obscurantism as a general phenomenon creates the impression that terrorist violence in the name of God is on the same scale of anti-social behavior as refusing to acknowledge Darwinian theory or saluting the flag. The courts certainly recognize these distinctions. Thoughtful people should, as well. Part of the price we pay for living in a free society is there are those who don't accept modern science, or socially-accepted practices such as the Pledge of Allegiance.
If we can stipulate these facts, and their differences moving forward, we might actually get somewhere.
