“The only foundation… of the republic is religion. Without it there can be no virtue, and without virtue there is no freedom, and freedom is the object and life of all republican governments.” —Benjamin Rush
Conservative Christians like me love quotes like these, and we find it nice that there are so many to choose from. While the left is quick to point out that it was the Enlightenment, not Christianity, that shaped our country and our constitution, our Founding Fathers never for a moment imagined that the American experiment could succeed without the assist of religion – hence the multitude of quotes like the one above .
Unfortunately, religious freedom has come under siege in recent decades. Progressive academic and government elites insist that religion has never contributed anything positive to society, and they do everything in their power to marginalize the role of faith in public life and narrow the definition of religious freedom to the point that it effectively becomes invalid . This campaign to undermine the role of religion and its constitutional protections has reached novel heights under President Obama.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama gave a speech in which he clearly outlined his views on the role of religion in society and the relationship of religion to government. Referring to the challenge of reaching his working, rural and industrial electorate with his message, he said the following:
“But the truth is that our challenge is to convince people that we can make progress when there is no evidence of it in their everyday lives. You go to some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio – a lot of small towns in the Midwest, there have been no jobs for 25 years and nothing has replaced them. And they failed because of the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. Each successive administration has claimed that these communities will somehow recover. And that didn’t happen so it’s not surprising that they become bitter and cling to guns or religion or resentment towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigration sentiment or, you know, anti-trade sentiment [as] a way to explain your frustrations.”
For the most part, this is typical fodder for stump speech. Obama spoke to a warm crowd of West Coast urbanites and condescendingly presented the psychoanalysis of rubes on the flyover. However, his words are revealing. Essentially, the Progressive candidate was implying that the only reason people “cling” to religion these days is because they feel that government is not doing its job properly in their lives. If government functioned as it should, as this argument goes, people would not have to put their faith in “things we hope for that cannot be seen.” The government would not only meet all their needs, but would instill in them the values and vision of godless secularism. Traditional morality (a product of religion) would be replaced by a progressive orthodoxy that values radical sexual freedom and radical government control in almost every other area.
William J. Haun recently analyzed this phenomenon in an article for Public discoursein which he linked the American left’s narrow interpretation of religious freedom to the moral philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Like the Progressive of today, Rousseau shared a very particular conception of the role that religion should play in the formation of virtuous citizens. He believed that it should play little or no role because allegiance to an hidden god undermined allegiance to government and therefore to the common good. The practical result of this way of thinking is a “conditional” view of religious liberty, and that’s what we see in practice today with things like the HHS Mandate and the push to redefine marriage. Generally, the President and his ideological brethren believe that it is okay to have personal religious beliefs and worship the god of one’s choice in private or in church on Sunday, but they reject the idea that moral principles derived from religion should influence society’s life or public policy. in any way.
This way of thinking is not only inimical to the health of the community, but is completely inconsistent with America’s intellectual and moral heritage. From Haun article: :
“The Founders saw America’s religious vitality and diversity as essential – or, as George Washington said in his farewell address, “essential support” – to civic formation. Although this view rejected the idea of an established national church, it allowed religion to flourish through debate and diversity—much like James Madison’s description in Federalist 10 of the flourishing of republican government through diverse political interests—and provided a basic justification for individual liberty: the soul must remain sovereign.
This view of the role of religion in civic life implies not only a wide scope for conscience, but also a limitation of the role of government. Only a government that refrains from dominating the ordinary spheres of moral and religious development – family, church, school, and civic associations – can reasonably encourage the growth of virtue through religious practice and refrain from conscientious objections.
This is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they built the “wall of separation between church and state.” The most critical concern was not freedom from religion, it was a legally and culturally protected sphere in which religion could fulfill its vital social function of civic formation. John Adams was absolutely right when he stated that “Our Constitution was created solely for a moral and religious nation. It is completely inappropriate for any other government.” He knew that the success of the American experiment depended on the character of the people and that religion was indispensable to the development of hearty character. He also recognized that many of the principles contained in the Constitution were derived from inherently religious principles, especially those arising from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
So what happens when society’s political leaders and cultural creators reject this understanding of freedom and its relationship to religion? Haun continues:
“[A]as the government’s power increases in areas reserved for civic formation, it begins to displace religion in this role. This diminished place for religion as civic teacher leaves room only for religious believers who conform to the state’s view of virtue, while simultaneously rendering dissenters an irritation to be appeased at best and a marginalized hostile force at worst.
The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose work had a major influence on a separate experiment in liberalism, the French Revolution, believed that the educational role of religion should be decided by the state. In his notable work The Social Contract, Rousseau argues that the division between the masters of conscience and the masters of the state justifies limiting the educational power of religion to matters of little importance or that do not concern the community at all. However, in relation to the community, there will be a civil religion whose aim will be to “bind the hearts of citizens to the state.” Citizens may have purely private religious opinions on matters irrelevant to the social order, but for Rousseau “the ruler is the sole judge of what is important.” Opposition to state goals cannot be tolerated.”
Rousseau’s intolerance of the dictates of religious conscience is exactly what we see in the context of things like the HHS Mandate and the ongoing debate over the definition of marriage. If you are part of the dwindling remnant that believes that religious beliefs can play a role in resolving these issues, then you are an obstacle to progress and must be neutralized.
It is no exaggeration to say that the anti-religious supporters of today’s government and the culture that supports them want to put government in the place of God. According to their vision, the government is omniscient and should be omnipotent. Perhaps the NSA scandal will cause some to reconsider this position. This issue perfectly illustrates the dangers we face when a government establishes itself as the ultimate authority in matters of human liberty. With no higher authority to appeal to, people must settle for the judgment of their leaders. If the government manages to come up with justification for the growing number of abuses and usurpations, the matter will be settled and there will be nothing left to do.
This is not freedom and it is certainly not the vision our Founders had when they drafted our Constitution. It’s tyranny, plain and basic. This is what happens to a nation when we “evolve” beyond our need for God and substitute a government in His place.
