God's Funeral

It's difficult to imagine a working-class radical and avowed atheist even being elected to Congress in late-20^th-century America, much less sworn in. I guess we're not quite as modern as some Victorians, although we are as primitive as others. Remember Tom DeLay's recent tirade against the teaching of evolution, which he blamed for the shootings in Littleton? Not to mention the bill passed by the House last month mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools. The House recently defeated a resolution calling for all Americans to abase themselves before God, but not before some 140 members voted for it. Maybe we should replace the Capitol with a revival tent.

PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...SINGLE PAGE

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

You can dismiss someone like DeLay as an extremist, but, in the wake of Littleton, many moderate pundits and politicians who disdain creationism joined him in decrying the nihilism supposedly engendered by our secular culture. You and I disagree about the alleged skepticism of the chattering classes. From my perspective, most professional chatterers today tend to be almost as deferential to religion as politicians. They may occasionally ponder the appropriate place of religion in public life, but they rarely, if ever, express any irreverence toward established religions (although they feel free to mock New Age). If Gladstones are scarce today, so are Menckens.

We do agree that the pandering and preaching of politicians is especially loathsome. I'm afraid, however, that they do find it effective. DeLay and his comrades on the far right aren't playing to the variegated denominations you mention; they're playing to their base. People such as Al Gore who aim to please all of us, or as many as possible, traffic mostly in ecumenical banalities about the virtue and values of Godliness: Gore talks nonsensically about parents who "struggle to pass on the right values" to their children. And he confirms his own religiosity, deploring the "hollow secularism" that supposedly afflicts the unenlightened. That's probably about the most fire and brimstone that we'll hear from him. And while it may be foolish to deride secularism as hollow, it's not particularly risky--not in a nation of Indians.

You don't need a crystal ball to know that we are likely to see more preaching and pandering, not less, as the 2000 election approaches. Having successfully embraced a Republican agenda on crime control, Democrats are adopting Republicanesque rhetoric and policies on religion. Indeed, religion is presented by both parties as an antidote to crime. Al Gore has recently declared his support for faith-based social services--publicly funded social-service programs delivered by sectarian institutions--which were championed by conservative Republican Senator John Ashcroft three years ago and expressly authorized by the Clinton welfare bill.

Faith-based social services are all the rage; they're apt to be implemented widely in the next few years, along with school-voucher programs. So, we're likely to see an unprecedented diversion of tax dollars to churches, mosques, and synagogues. I can't wait for Rev. Moon or the next David Koresh to establish a religious school seeking voucher students or apply for government funds under a charitable choice provision. Do you think an organization like the American Center for Law and Justice, which fights for the rights of Christians, will take on the anti-discrimination suit of a New Age guru denied a government grant? I suspect that most people support faith-based services only so long as they support the particular faith delivering the service.

The challenge for the dwindling ranks of secularists is to convince people that the separation of church and state is not hostile to religion; it serves religion, or rather it serves religions. Religious leaders who enjoy tax exemptions should surely understand that. (And I should make clear that separationism does not require religious people and religious leaders to withdraw from the political sphere; it requires government to withhold support from sectarian activities and keeps government free of sectarian structures.) Anyway, it should be obvious that secularism makes pluralism possible. That prohibitions on establishing religion ensure free exercise is such a simple concept, and yet it's so widely ignored. Sometimes I'm amused by all the religious posturing, and sometimes I'm quite discouraged.

Sometimes I put my faith in sectarian rivalries, which helped derail the most recent proposed school-prayer amendment to the Constitution. Last year, an organization in Arkansas, Put God Back in Public School, decided not to press for the introduction of official school prayers in Arkansas (instead, they demanded state funding for special Christian schools). The group reconsidered the value of school prayer after its founder, Kathy Smith, consulted with God: "I asked God, 'Do you want me to change the law to put prayer in the schools?' He said no. If you do that, kids would have the right to pray to other Gods too. They could pray to Buddha. God doesn't want that. There is only one God."

What more can I say but "Amen."

P.S.: I'm easy Cullen, anytime you want to have a face to face conversation, just give me a call.

PRINTE-MAILRECOMMEND...RSS

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

Wendy Kaminer is a Fellow at Radcliffe Institute of Public Policy. Her forthcoming book, Sleeping With Extra-Terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety (click hereto buy the book) will be published in October 1999. Cullen Murphy is the Atlantic's managing editor. His most recent book is The Word According to Eve: Women and the Bible in Ancient Times and Our Own (click hereto buy the book). This week they are discussing A.N. Wilson's God's Funeral (click here to buy the book).

SPONSORED CONTENT