church/state one

Andrew on Civil Religion

This is the first of two posts. Here, I will address civil religion and some objections thereto. In the next, I will defend certain government-religion bondings; more specifically, government funding for those that make hiring selections using religious beliefs factors.

As Mike pointed out in comment sections below, our world views affect our different approaches to church/state issues to such an extent that it is nearly impossible to structure a reasonable debate; this, because we cannot share assumptions about costs and benefits. I cannot really know Mike's sense of loss if we remove "God" from certain ceremonial exercises; just as Mike cannot really know my affront at the same use, or my willingness to assert a national conscience without god. With that basic, post-modern informed point duly made, I think we can move on to identifying the crux of this issue.

In offline discussion, Mike and I discussed whether the word "God" is needed, ever so rarely, in government/civic language. This, somewhat in light of a point Lily made: whether God exists and plays a certain force in the life of our Nation is undetermined by the extent to which we evoke and acknowledge God.

Mike believes that the word is, in fact, needed. I think such use is almost always wrong (Constitutionally and morally). Which of us is right?

While, again, our respective assumptions make difficult a rational (should I say, mutually understood) debate on the cost/benefit of "God" use, we can work to understand what the word means when used. We can work to some objective meaning: what the use of "God" means before it enters the matrixes of our respective world views.

Mike has offered several comments in response to my earlier questions about the nature of God in civil religion. Now we turn to the use of the word. Remembering Lily's aforementioned point, it seems clear that the use of "God" is not aligned to any metaphysical aim. Rather, it is about us. God is or is not. The use of the word must have the purpose of directing our behavior, and affecting our government and National structure. The use of "God" is a societal tool with some affect as its aim.

Thus, I need to learn from Mike, or some others that embrace civil religion, the social goal "God" use. Further, I want to know the extent of use needed to achieve that goal. Obviously, we dance a careful dance with the use as it is. If we were to up the use, as Mike advocates, what parameters do we use? As Mike has acknowledged, the civil religion god is not an amebic god shifting in design and conforming to endless interpretations. Mike's civil religion God is the source of love and good in America, or more simply, a source. What else? So far, we can ascribe "source" and use that word with the civil religion God. What other words can we descriptively use? Where does it go too far? These uncertainties make up the fear that brings about my rejection of civil religion.

And then there is my belief that "God," in the civic sphere, is inappropriate for the uniting word for our source of Good, and for the source of our unique Democratic Nation. A civil religion, or a national conscience, that outcasts a portion of our population is wrong. And it is wrong to demand those people to accept the existence of god in order to belong to the moral fabric of our Nation. The use of "God" patently directs the conscious of the utterer. This is likely why Mike wants such use, and it is the gut of my rejection.

This is not an issue of a heckler's veto. If we talk about the undergirding, metaphysical power of our country, we are obliged to go all the way. We have to find what is true to ALL humans and what is true and unique about America. Needleman writes that this is the dual nature in humans- that we are both spiritual/moral beings (with a conscience) and we are grounded in our bodies as animals. Unique to America is our founders' attempt to create a place where we can experience, actively and thoughtfully, that struggle. It is a wrestling match, and America is the proud Rink.