Imposing Christianity Redux

Apparently the fine folks over at the Rovian Conspiracy have noticed my humble little blog here, as a result of my post on "imposing Christianity." To recap: Missouri, where I spent many happy hours when I lived in Quincy, IL, is considering a resolution to make Christianity the "official majority religion." The Rovians have been so kind as to locate the actual text of the resolution, so that we may quote it in full:

House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY

4572L.02I

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

NB. The boldface is from the Rovian edition of the resolution, for reasons that will become apparent. Let us parse this resolution paragraph by paragraphy, shall we?

"Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation..."

This is said often enough in public discourse that it probably bears a much longer discussion than I can reasonably give it, and I would note that the answers are more complex than either side on this issue is usually likely to admit. Nevertheless, if "our forefathers" is understood in the traditional sense of "the guys who founded the country," then it's hard to make a case that as a group the "recogized a Christian God." Although there were some fervent Christians in the bunch, by far the greatest intellectual heft was weilded by folks who were deists -- Franklin and Washington, and especially Jefferson notable among them. (NB., I will note that St Wendeler at Rovian Conspiracy objects to this "whereas" as well).

"Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him..."

Fully agreed here. As a citizen of this great nation, I also wish to exercise my constitutional right to acknowledge my creator, and since I'm in the majority, I get to do that with no questions asked. I guess it kind of sucks to be in the minority of you live in Missouri though!

It's said so often, once again, that I hesitate to repeat it, but it apparently gets forgotten as often as it gets said -- the purpose of the bill of rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority! A majoritarianism that seeks to lord it over those religions with less power on the basis of numbers seeks to vacate the very purpose of the Bill of Rights. If you happen to be in the majority, that's great. But it's a bad time to be in the minority. Moving on:

"Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object..."

I have to admit, I find this passage just a tad weird. We want to grant the majority the right to express their beliefs, but show respect for those who object. Object to what? To the majority expressing their religious beliefs? Who objects to that? Even atheists don't object to believers expressing their religious beliefs. They object to being forced to participate in the expression of those beliefs by such practices as the imposition of school prayer. When the kids in the high school gather 'round the flagpole every day, that's not a problem. When the principle makes the whole school gather 'round the flagpole though, that's a big problem. And furthermore, how exactly is it showing "respect" to these folks by simply running roughshod over their position?

For the life of me I don't get why this is controversial or hard to understand: If the kids themselves want to pray, as long as its undisruptive, they can do so. Out loud even! It's when the school teachers and administrators start getting in on the act that it takes on the air of coercion and is justifiably objectionable. Continuing:

"Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers..."

Yes, I'd like to do this too. And at the forefront of that wisdom was a separation of Church and State, reiterated and reconfirmed in many, many ways over the last two centuries. As long as we're continuing their wisdom, may we please continue that piece of wisdom as well?

"Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind..."

And now here is where we start getting into really hot water. Since when are legislators empowered to make theological declarations? When I vote for a legislator, I'm not voting for a high priest! "As elected officials" they are simply not authorized to "recognize" that a Greater Power exists. They're not qualified to make such a recognition. As private citizens they may believe it. As members of their church they may affirm it. As singers in the choir they may proclaim it. But as legislators, they have absolutely no business imposing it. It's out of their jurisdiction.

I return to the phrase I've used before, that of "reasonable pluralism." The idea of reasonable pluralism (not a term original to me, by the way), is that a civil society creates space wherein a diversity of points of view can be entertained and argued for. When legislatures start imposing particular belief systems (even through as dubious a process as a "resolution"), they remove from the sphere of reasonable pluralism the ability to entertain or argue for certain ideas. They add the power of the state to a partiular interpretation and thus delegitimize alternative interpretations. There may be circumstances where this is necessary, but my inner libertarian thinks they ought to be few and far between. What allows for reasonable pluralism to thrive is the sense that a variety of viewpoints are legitimate on their own terms and thus subject to the possibility of vigorous debate and discussion. And may the better ideas prevail.

"...we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America." (boldface in the original)

Ok, let's address an oddity in the Rovian Conspiracy post first of all: St. Wendeler writes:

Note that KMOV said that the resolution says that only Christianity received "justified recognition."  No where in the resolution do the words "justified recognition" appear.  If they are quoting someone or some source other than the resolution, they should reference the source.

Again, boldface type in the original. So, in the spirit of discourse and cooperation, allow me to cite the source of the phrase "justified recognition" (just in case you missed it the first time):

"...we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America."

So, the source of the phrase "justified recognition" is in fact, contrary to St. Wendeler's contention, the resolution itself. However, I will grant that it's slightly ambiguous what the phrase means here. It seems to be saying that voluntary prayer and religious displays are themselves justified recognition of Christianity's positive role, rather than that the state grants "justified recognition" to Christianity. Insofar as my earlier post misinterpreted that phrase, it deserves correction. There is a difference between a legislature granting something "justified recognition" and a legislature affirming that non-legislative actions are acts of "justified recognition."

However, before St. Wendeler congratulates himself too much on the catch (such as it is, since he apparently overlooked the phrase entirely!), I want to express scepticism about the distinction I just drew, based on the text of the resolution.

After all, if the claim here is that voluntary prayer and religious displays are "justified recognition" of Christianity's contribution, then on its face the resolution is delegitimating non-Christian voluntary prayer and religious displays. It affirms only the right of Christians to express their "justified recognition" of their faith's contribution to the nation. And in light of the "whereas" portion of the resolution, it seems pretty clear that the "majority" spoken of here is not simply the majority that believe in some higher power versus none, but a recognition of the particular and explicit higher power that is affirmed by Christianity! This further contributes to the impression that "justified recognition" is affirmed only for Christian expressions of faith, and emphatically not for non-Christian expressions.

So, whatever the original context of "justified recognition" might have been, its effect is to offer the legislature's endorsement of Christianity as having "justified recognition." In the end, the result is the same.

Considering that St. Wendeler went so far as to lable me a "nutter" for expressing concern about this, it does seem that he ought to address the points I make here. Although in parting I'll note two things on which I agree with him: First, this is a resolution, and not a law (and frankly, I'd be surprised if it passed), and so it doesn't carry a whole lot of legal weight. Second, Atrios really does have far too many open threads. Content, man! Give us content!

Comments

[St Wendeler]

Scott - First, I referred to all of those that had a kneejerk reaction to Atrios' post as "nutters." And it's a phrase that I've employed often.

Second, thanks for catching the "justified recognition" bit... certainly an oversight on my part. However, I did not see the phrase that only Christianity justified recognition by the State of Missouri. It seems that the non-binding resolution seeks to recognize the contribution of Christianity, not the religion itself.

It's clear that this non-binding resolution is in response to increased pressure on state & local governments to remove religious displays from public property, disallow prayers before football games, graduations, etc... not by school administrators, but by students themselves.

And finally, in response to:
When I vote for a legislator, I'm not voting for a high priest! "As elected officials" they are simply not authorized to "recognize" that a Greater Power exists.

I assume that "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" is not recognition of a higher power in your mind?

Thanks for the comments, btw...

The thrust of my post was that Atrios (true to form) did not do any legwork to even find the text of the resolution, and simply implied that the state of MO is moving toward theocracy. He relied on KMOV to frame the resolution... and both could have served their readers better.

Perhaps in the future, you'll be more careful in what little "content" Atrios provides.

If only I could get payola for posting Open Threads & copying/pasting!

[Scott Paeth]

Well, as long as you've used the term "nutter" often, I suppose it's ok then! After all, it's not an insult if you say it all the time.

[St Wendeler]

Scott - I've updated my post to reflect the revelation you provided and to thank you for the enlightenment (puns intended). Also, I've apologized for calling you a "nutter," but I must say that many of those that see this as the establishment of a theocracy in Missouri could rightly be described in such a manner.

Regards,
St Wendeler