7/27/2008--I am writing a book to be entitled “For the Establishment of Religion”. The book argues that the American law of church and state is changing. The dominant paradigm—separation of church and state and government neutrality toward religion—probably no longer commands majority support on the Supreme Court and probably will not do so for the foreseeable future no matter who wins the Presidential election. A President Obama is not going to nominate a separationist like Justice Stevens after the faith friendly campaign he has been running. The wall of separation ran into “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Unfortunately, the only alternative to the separation approach to the Establishment Clause right now is Justice Scalia’s proposal to endorse monotheism, to the denigration not only of non-believers, but Buddhists and Hindus and other believers. He says their views can be disregarded in light of the history in America of monotheism.
With luck, that proposal will not gain majority support on the Court either. It does not reflect the openness of the American people.
My book will argue that government should be permitted to endorse—“establish”—religion, just not any particular religion. My understanding of religion includes the notion of Hallowed Secularism, so that not only all believers but most secularists are included. (Whether this vision succeeds, is another question).
But my approach requires a broad notion of “religion”, one that is consonant with a basically naturalistic view of reality. For example, the natural laws of science are not subject to miraculous exceptions.
This leads to a dispute with the terrific American sociologist, Peter Berger. In A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural (1969)(reissued with new material in 1990), Professor Berger suggests that trust in reality is at the heart of religion--with which I certainly agree--and that if this trust does not include a reality beyond death, that trust is not truthful, but is a delusion.
It seems to me that this assertion illustrates a basic disagreement between the Christian tradition and the original insight of the Hebrew Bible. (Judaism has since wavered on this point). The Old Testament was generally content with a human span of life in obedience to God’s will in support of God’s plan for humanity. That is how Abraham lived and died. It is how Moses lived and died. There was no promise to them of personal immortality in a heaven, nor of an end to suffering in a new age—no messianism, in other words-- though Pope Benedict sees that promise in the farewell to Moses in Deuteronomy.
The question is, can man live with death as an ultimate finality and still affirm existence? I think the answer to that question is yes. This is a different question from the question about suffering, whether inflicted by nature or by human beings on each other. On that, more later.
Welcome
There is a man in America who was taken to church as a child. When he went to a local college Sam spent most of his time with friends, studying, playing games and with nice girls. When holidays came around he went to church with his parents where he liked the preacher's stories but Sam did not believe the parts that insisted that God was the all powerful.
When he took his first job as an accountant Sam was able to live in a nice house and enjoy life around town with his friends. He became engaged to a woman he loved and they had plans for a secure life. As time went on Sam made plans for getting a better job and living a better life.
He moved with his family to a new city where there was a well paying job. When Sam was alone he occasionally had feelings of depression and loneliness even though he loved his family and they loved him. He tried many things like taking his family on vacations and spending more time entertaining his friends but the uplifting benefits of these things would fade quickly.
Sam was very protective of what he had and was very sad when his first child went off to a university. His children visited on occasion, he moved to better jobs and bought nice things to live with. Until the day Sam died he worked to get that better life that America had promised but there was always more that was needed.
****************
Now there is another man in America who was also taken to church as a child. When he went to a local college Pat spent most of his time with friends, studying, playing games and with nice girls. When holidays came around he went to church with his parents where he liked the preacher's stories but Pat did not believe the parts that insisted that God was the all powerful.
When he took his first job as an accountant Pat was able to live in a nice house and enjoy life around town with his friends. He became engaged to a woman he loved and they had plans for an abundant life. As time went on Pat made plans for ensuring that his family would have what they needed.
He moved a few times between jobs looking for one that would pay the bills and was a fulfilling place to work. When Pat was alone he thought about who he was and what the right way was to raise a family. He took his family on vacations, entertained friends and reminded himself constantly that he was lucky to have these things he loved.
Pat had high hopes for his children and encouraged them to take risks while being conscious to do the right thing. He and his wife stayed in the same house and his children came back to visit on occasion. Until the day Pat died he pursued a good life, he love America for providing him the opportunities he had and was fulfilled with his life.
The difference between Sam and Pat is not some psychological difference; it is that Pat believed that there was a universal good within a world of randomness and Sam believed that relationships and objects could make his life good. Sam was a Secularist, Pat was a Hallowed Secularist.
This blog will track the progress of a new way of life in this society, a way of life that may come to be known as Hallowed Secularism. In the short run, I will be writing a book that describes this way of life, at least as I see its future. But in the longer run, others will decide the future of Hallowed Secularism by living it.
A group of self-announced atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, is currently trying to push secularism toward atheism and away from religion. But secularism need not be atheism. The secularist rejects many things the religious person holds dear: a traditional God, life after death, miracles and so forth. But the secularist can still have a conception of God or Godhead. The secularist may see a deep pattern in history and may feel a profound connection to all that is. Secularism can be holy. You and I will live that possibility.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment