I'm going to start this blog post out with a definition.
Secular: Adjective. Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
Secular means "non-religious." It does NOT necessarily mean "anti-religious." Those are two separate terms. "Non-religious" means that a specific item or institution (a building, a school district, a government, etc.) is not intended for religious use nor influenced by or supported by or affiliated with any religion. It is separate from religion; the two do not come in contact with each other. In reference to a person, it would mean that such a person is not affiliated with any religion, and does not adhere to religious beliefs or practices.
"Anti-religious" would indicate that more contact is taking place; it hints at active attempts to suppress, alter, or control religion. An anti-religious person would be vehemently against participating in or witnessing religion; they might allow others to participate in religion privately, but certainly not publicly.
A person (and a government) can be non-religious without being anti-religious. There are some models of secularism that are anti-religious - specifically, France's laïcité, where the government actually dictates to its citizens the kind of religion-related clothes and symbols that can be worn in public schools or on public streets.
But when I talk about secularism, and wishing that the United States government was secular, I don't mean the rigorous sort of anti-religious secularism France seems to advocate - I mean only that I wish religion and government were separate entities (or, at least, as separate as they can be), and that I wish the First Amendment of our Constitution was upheld consistently and fairly, so that we all can benefit from its promise.
"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
That clause was written into our Bill of Rights purposefully, with careful consideration, and despite controversy at the time, because the founders of our nation believed in those words. They knew European history, rife with its past and present religious conflict, and were afraid of repeating its mistakes.
Some reasoned, as Martin Luther and John Locke had years earlier, that the government did not belong in religious affairs for ethical or spiritual reasons. "Religion," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "is a matter which lies solely between man and his God" - meaning that the government therefore has no right to endorse religion. Jefferson continued, "the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." James Madison went one step further, reasoning that religious governments paved the way for pride and tyranny. He remarked that "superstition, bigotry, and persecution" were the fruits of the "legal establishment of Christianity." These two Founders were in the minority among Americans at that time, going farther than most in their beliefs that the government and religion shouldn't mix. Madison, especially, maintained an extreme pessimism about the social value of religion that few could agree with.
Still, and perhaps more tellingly, the Founders refrained from invoking the scriptures anywhere in the Constitution, despite the fact that they lived in a world culturally immersed in them and absolutely nothing was stopping them from doing so. Clearly, they did not have a "Christian nation" in mind (as so many argue today), and were willing to set the groundwork for a secular government to be constructed.
(All this, by the way, is according to the wonderful book How To Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom by Jacques Berlinerblau, which is amazingly well-researched and chock-full of footnotes and references.)
Despite these beginnings, however, our current government is not very secular. There is often no clear separation of church and state. There are references to God everywhere in our government - in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, printed on our money, and engraved on statues and government buildings all over this country. Other examples are nativity scenes, crosses, or statues of the Ten Commandments on public land, prayers starting public meetings, and prayers in public schools. This might not seem like such a big deal at first glance - but consider how alienating it can feel for someone who does not believe in any god, or someone who does not believe in a singular god, or the Christian capital-G God, to see "In God We Trust" on official government currency and buildings. Who is this "we" that's being referenced, and why are atheists and non-Christians immediately excluded from it?
These types of references to religion (Christianity specifically) are sometimes called "ceremonial deism." When it is challenged in court, it is often upheld by judges, under the reasoning that it is part of our national heritage, and simply tradition/custom at this point, without any overt religiousness. But if there were no passionate religious people behind the continued use of these phrases and these practices, then they wouldn't be defended so fervently in court. And, according to atheist author Greta Christina (http://www.alternet.org/
That linked article, by the way, has several examples backing up that claim - specific times when our nation's "In God We Trust" motto and public, government-sponsored prayer have been used to shame, belittle, and award second-class status to non-Christians. It also goes on to explain why, even if these instances WERE just symbols, just traditions, and not meant to be used as a way to discriminate against non-Christians - those symbols still matter. Nothing is too trivial when it is a symptom of a larger issue:
"Are these the most pressing problems facing the nation? No. Of course not... But that doesn't make them trivial. Symbolic issues can have a significant impact. Employers requiring women to wear makeup wasn't the most pressing problem facing the women's movement, but most people understand why it was a fight worth fighting. Segregated drinking fountains and lunch counters weren't the most pressing problems facing the civil rights movement, but most people understand why they were deeply troubling and needed to end. President Obama saying same-sex marriage should be legal had zero effect on same-sex couples' legal rights, but most people understand why the President's statement mattered, and mattered enormously."
Even "surface" discrimination can hurt. And just because something is tradition doesn't mean it still has a place in modern society. If you've seen the responses of civil rights activists to some Southern states still flying the Confederate flag, you know what I mean - seeing those symbols can be painful reminders that the government once (and STILL) endorses awful practices that particularly target marginalized groups. Why should people who belong to those groups, or people who call themselves supporters, allies, or friends, feel comfortable in such communities?
But the government doesn't only use these "ceremonial" instances of religion, either. Look at some of the policies that get passed, or that congresspeople try to get passed; look at some of the rhetoric government officials feel comfortable saying. Look at the religious beliefs that are taught as fact or viable possibilities in public school, such as creationism being taught as a legitimate alternative to evolution, or sexual abstinence being taught to the detriment of educating youth on other methods of birth control or STI prevention. Look at the way Congress impedes medical progress by attempting to curtail stem-cell research or abortion care in the name of religious beliefs. Look at the way the government bends over backward to accommodate outlandish corporate decisions about how to run their companies, compensate their employees, or provide health benefits - all because the CEOs claim their policies stem from religious (read: Christian) beliefs that they hold and desire to practice at work - even if that means coercing non-believer employees into adhering to tenants of a religion they do not support.
The above examples only touch on a few; there are other very frightening ways in which the government supports Christian privilege in this country - through policies and through finances. Furthermore, several Christian groups lobby the government and influence these policy decisions.
I wish this wasn't the case. I wish our government was not influenced by religion - because when it is, it is inevitably Christianity that does the influencing. I also wish our government didn't support religious institutions - unless it can learn how to do so equally, with equal support given to all religious and non-religious groups (which I doubt is even possible) - because right now, when it does support religion, it is inevitably Christianity that it supports.
These sorts of practices perpetuate Christian privilege, deny people who belong to other religions the same opportunities, and often leave non-religious individuals out of the discussion altogether. Worse, when the government as an institution, or the people who represent it at federal, state, and local levels, model "othering" non-Christian groups by supporting only Christianity or making blanket statements about those who aren't Christian, they seem to sanction religious homogeneity, as well as discrimination, intolerance, and violence toward non-Christians. A government which endorses one and only one religion is one step away from a theocracy - and theocracies can be dangerous things: glorified cults that get away with all manner of atrocities in the name of religion simply because they have the numbers, the means, and the political power to back them up.
My next bouquet drawing will work to show the beautiful arrangement that can be made when all religions (and non-religious groups) are represented. I do not want to erase religion; I just want everyone to have a say. I want everyone's beliefs to be recognized and respected - and part of that is having a government which does not seem to endorse one religion at the expense of other religions, or at the expense of non-religious people.
So what would a secular government even look like?
For a start, there would be no National Day of Prayer or religious words in the country's motto. There would be no nativity scenes in front of government buildings - because to do so would be to endorse a Christian holiday while ignoring or excluding the holidays of every other religion. The Pledge of Allegiance would return to its pre-1950s rendition - which didn't include the phrase "Under God". Public schools would teach only the topics that experts in those fields give merit to, and not present alternative views without such academic support as being equally worthy of consideration. (The news media, too, could learn from this - increasingly, journalists are presenting all possible opinions on a controversial topic as equally reasonable opinions to have, and thus legitimizing harmful, extremist opinions held only by a small, attention-seeking minority.)
Policies that a secular government passed would not be influenced by religious beliefs, or support other institutions or corporations which tried to coerce non-believers into being subject to the customs or beliefs of their religion. Everyone would be legally permitted to have sex or get married to those of their choice, presuming all parties were consenting adults. All medical procedures would be legal and available, presuming that they had gone through the rigorous trials that any medical procedure is subject to for approval, and no patient would be shamed for making a medical decision about their own life that went against the religious beliefs of their doctor, or coerced into refusing (or taking) medical treatment they wanted to receive (or deny).
Furthermore, if the United States government truly became secular, American Christians would lose a lot of privilege - which would create a more egalitarian society. (For more on Christian privilege, see this previous post. And for more on why a loss of Christian privilege would actually be a good step toward eradicating religious discrimination, read this blog post from Monday.)
I don't say this because I hate Christianity and want it to be eradicated, or because I want Christians to be persecuted. I just don't want Christians to have unfair advantages in this country any more than I want men to have unfair advantages over women, white people to have unfair advantages over people of color, or heterosexual or cisgendered individuals to have unfair advantages over those who don't identify in those ways.
Secularism does not equal atheism, and those who believe a secular government would be beneficial (to people of ALL religions, and to those who are non-religious) can also be religious people in their personal lives. In fact, many who advocate for a more secular government are religious - especially those who belong to minority religions (religions other than Christianity), who are troubled by recent policies of the Christian-controlled government. Even Christians can advocate for a more secular government, if they recognize that there are Americans who don't subscribe to their religious beliefs - Americans who are no less American for doing so.
Democratic governments should represent all people - not just those belonging to the privileged religion. The best way to do this is to make sure the government is a secular one - and that it stays secular, regardless of which political party currently holds the presidency or congressional majority. Not only is secularism democracy - but it is a hallmark of our democracy, as the founding fathers intended.
That first clause of the First Amendment is so important. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." What is so hard to understand about that? When did the United States government forget this provision? And why did we, the citizens, let it happen - and continue to do so?
No comments:
Post a Comment