Church, State, and the Crisis in American Secularism (excerpt)

7/31/2019 Church, State, and the Crisis in American Secularism (excerpt)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/church-state-and-the-crisis-in-american-secularism-excerpt 1/12

Secularism

Bruce Ledewitz

Church, State,

and the Crisisin American



Cont en t S

· Preface x

· Acknowledgments x

· Introduction x

· Part 1. The Establish en t lase ri sis 1

1 W W Sy: Supm Cou’ om of

Gom Nuy ow Rgo 3

2 W W Do: Fu of Supm Cou o

Rm om of Gom Nuy 24

3 Wy Oy op No Hoy C Ro m Cu C 46

4 opo H F o Ro

m Cu C 72

· Part 2. Usin ver ne nt eeh an d iher a

t e slve the Establishent lase risis 95

5 m of Hg Lw 97

6 g Rgou Symo o Hg Lw 120

7 Appyg Hg Lw Cuc/S Iu 143



· Part 3. Usin the iher a Establish en t

lase t ave el ar is 169

8 Fu of Scum u Nw Am 171

9 Nw Nw Scum Hg Lw 19010 I Go Symo? 210

11 Nw oc of Hg Lw Scum 229

· Cocuo: fcg Dmoccy 246

· Notes 249

· Selected Bibliography 267

· Index 271



xv

i n t roduC t i on

Tee ae wo chuch/sae cses oay Ameca. Te s s a c-ss he law of he Esablshme Clause, whch saes ha “Cogessshall make o law especg a esablshme of elgo.” Alhoughhe Ue Saes Supeme Cou has pomse goveme eualy owa elgo, Ameca coues o have a vey elgously oee,ee a moohescally oee, publc squae. ove a half ceuy since Everson v. Board of Education1 rst introduced the norms of govern-me eualy a he wall of sepaao bewee chuch a sae,there is still no broad consensus among the American people concerninghe pope ole of elgo he publc squae. No s hee basc agee-me amog he jusces o he Ue Saes Supeme Cou as o hepemssble ole of elgo. Tee ae eals ha ae shae, such as he

anti-coercion principle, but there is not agreement as to foundations.Te key queso—whehe we ae o have a geuely secula gove-ment—has not been answered. Te gap between the Court’s pronounce-mes, o he oe ha, a socal ealy, o he ohe, s pehaps bessymbolized by the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, whicha lowe feeal cou, 2003, fou o be a ucosuoal esablsh-me of elgo, befoe he Ue Saes Supeme Cou evese hedecision on standing grounds. Many observers of the legal landscape

expec a chage ehe wha we o o wha we say abou wha weo. Mos expec he Cou o sclam eualy.



xv I n t rdt in

Te seco css s as ye baely vsble o mos people. Seculasms gowg Ameca. Pehaps 15 pece of he populao has o s-uoal elgo a hs umbe wll lkely cease. Seculasm s ow

popular enough that one may consider it a social phenomenon in its ownright. Secularism is no longer a simple description of the consequence of loss of belef; o may, epeses a aleave way of lfe ha shoul

be sasfyg s ow gh.Te css seculasm s s elaoshp o elgo. Ameca

secularism has been reexively anti-religion. Tis distancing has cutseculasm o fom he souces of wsom ha elgo has ao-

ally epesee. New voces seculasm ae callg fo a eevaluaoof the available sources of meaning for human life, which might leado a appocheme wh elgo. A hs po, o oe ca foesee heeco whch seculasm Ameca wll go. Wll coue scue eco owa elavsm a posmoe humasm o wll seek commo gou wh ou elgous aos?

Tese two crises—in the interpretation of the Establishment Clausea wh seculasm—ae elae. s o oo amac o say ha

sc sepaao of chuch a sae s cuely Ameca seculasm’social constitutional position. Te concept of constitutionalized separa-o of chuch a sae poves he omave fouao fo secula-sm’s geeal aemp o sace self fom elgo a o ea elgoas a meely pesoal a pvae mae. A moveme seculasm o-

wa egageme wh elgous souces s, heefoe, almos cocev-able whou a accompayg ecoseao of he meag of he

Esablshme Clause. Wha s eee o esolve boh cses s a commo gou beweeelgo a seculasm. f coul be show ha may beleves anonbelievers share certain commitments, those commitments couldthen be expressed in the public square, even by government, without any

volao of he sepaao of chuch a sae. A pehaps, alhoughhs s a moe coovesal asseo, elgous magey, laguage, asymbols coul be use o llusae hese shae commmes.

beleve ha he hghe law ao ca epese jus such com-mon ground. Let me demonstrate in a story just how this common



I n t rdt in xx

gou mgh wok. A a 2008 symposum ele “s Tee a HgheLaw? Does Mae?” Peppee law pofesso Robe Cocha s-cusse hs law-sue ays a he Uvesy of Vga. he soy,

Cocha’s pofesso of juspuece—Calv Woowa—llusaehough he achecue of he Uvesy of Vga a k of moalhkg ha was sappeag he weeh ceuy:

Above he colums a he eace o Clak Hall . . . cave soe was hesaeme: “Ta hose aloe may be sevas of he law who labo wh leag,couage, a evoo o peseve lbey a pomoe jusce.”

Fom he fo, we walke o a massve ey hall, aoe o ehe se wh muals. O oe se was Moses peseg he e Commames ohe saeles. O he ohe was wha appeae o be a ebae a Geek publcsquae. As we gaze up a he lage-ha-lfe gues, hey seeme o epesehe hghe aspaos of he law.

Te key o he soy fo Pofesso Cocha was he wo “jusce” he scpo. Oce, all o mos Ameca lawyes woul have ageeha jusce s a objecve value—somehg bul o he fabc of ex-istence. Tus assertions about justice could be regarded as true or false in

some sese, a law coul be measue agas ha objecve saaas ehe jus o ujus. Oe ame fo hs uesag of ealy s heoce of hghe law, of whch he bes kow exempla s aual law.Ts was he po of he soy ems of he symposum opc. Acco-g o he juspuece pofesso, hs k of hghe law hkg was ecle a was beg eplace by vaous foms of moal a legalrelativism. Cochran was taught that this trend toward relativism was the

majo juspueal sh of he weeh ceuy. ems of he Esablshme Clause, hee ae wo mpoa m-plcaos of hs soy. Fs, he Uvesy of Vga, a publc uve-sy—hece he goveme—was suppog oe se hs moecoovesy ove he aue of moaly. Te goveme, he guseof he uvesy, was asseg, symbolcally bu que evely, ha

jusce s eal. Ta was he goveme’s message he scpo a he muals. Seco, he goveme was usg a aoal elgous

mage—he gvg of he e Commames o sael—alog wha oelgous mage—Geek phlosophes—o llusae hs gove-



xx I n t rdt in

me message abou he aue of moaly. So, essece, he gove-ment was taking a controversial metaphysical position and was using

elgo pa o suppo a epese .

Tee woul pobably be wespea ageeme ha hese mualssplaye a a publc uvesy o o volae he cosuoal poh-

bo agas he esablshme of elgo. Fo some people, clug Jusce Sephe Beye, he fac ha he achecue ha bee hee foa whle, a whou coovesy, woul self elmae ay Esablsh-ment Clause problem.3 But I think many people, including many nonbe-leves, woul feel ha hee was o volao eve f he uvesy wee

o pu he mages up aew.Te reason that this display of the en Commandments wouldprobably not raise an establishment-of-religion objection is the pres-ence of Greek philosophical debate as part of the display. Tat refer-ece o Ahes emosaes ha he goveme was usg a elgoussymbol alog wh a oelgous symbol o make a moal clam hatranscends the particular message of either symbol. Te government wasasserting the importance of justice, not that God gave the law. Te use of

he muals suggess ha boh he Hebews a he Geek phlosophes beleve ha jusce s eal a ha we obseves shoul beleve , oo.

Te monotheistic religious believer—Christian, Jew, Muslim, orother—who encounters this architectural display would understand thatit is asserting that justice is real. Such a believer agrees with that position.Bu she woul also beleve ha he Geek phlosophes wee msake magg ha huma easo aloe coul eveal ulmae jusce.

ohe wos, he beleve’s accepace of he goveme’s oelgousmessage s ehace, bu oly o a egee, by he use of a aoalelgous symbol.

A higher law secularist would have a dierent reaction to the display.Ts seculas woul agee ha jusce s eal, bu woul beleve haelgo s msake pomog he oo of a supeaual evela-o of jusce. sea, she hols ha ehe easo, hsoy, aue, osome combao heeof, ae aequae explaaos of he souce of

ou cocep of jusce a of wha jusce ulmaely eques. Ts o-elgous fouao fo he goveme’s message s epesee by heGeek phlosophes.



I n t rdt in xx

Tus, fo boh he elgous a he oelgous obseve, he s-play may be understood to present a purportedly universal messageasceg ay oe elgous ao, a, a he same me, o pes-

ent religiously sectarian meanings, about which the observers woulddisagree. Both observers would understand the display along theseles.

Now mage a skepcal secula obseve. May moe hkes,especally amog he oelgous, spue he asseo ha jusce sreal as either a false, or even a meaningless, claim. Such a person, lookinga hs achecual splay, woul ss ha boh he e Comma-

mes a he coclusos of Geek phlosophy epese hough sys-ems ha wee hghly culually cooe (fo example, he vew of women). None of the assertions in the Bible or in Greek philosophy areeeally a objecvely val. Te goveme message he splay s hus false.

Yet, despite this profound disagreement with the message of thedisplay, it would be dicult to argue that this secular relativist has a

legal right to prevent the government from making the claim that justice

s eal. Te goveme cosaly makes asseos ha may peopledispute, but such assertions do not violate anyone’s constitutional rights.Tat authority has a name in constitutional jurisprudence. It is called theoce of goveme speech.

Tis book suggests that there might be in Professor Cochran’s simplesoy a esoluo of boh he Esablshme Clause css a he cssin secularism. Te doctrine of government speech may justiably permit

may seemgly elgous goveme messages. Tese elgous mes-sages mgh be cosuoally peme as plausble asseos of heexsece of hghe law.

As we wll see, jusces o he Ue Saes Supeme Cou havealeay suggese ha whe he goveme s usg elgous symbols a way ha ca be uesoo as suppog eess ha asceelgo, o s usg publc esouces o pomoe such eess, he gov-eme s o volag he Esablshme Clause. Tus, fo example,

the government was permied in the Everson case to bus students toall schools, clug elgous oes, he eess of he oelgous

value of publc safey.



xx I n t rdt in

But the justices have not yet transferred this kind of government

sceo o goveme asseos abou he aue of ealy. Te u- willingness of the justices to engage with philosophical and religious

eas o a eepe level has le o a o scepacy. Publc elgousdisplays and imagery are routinely upheld by the courts, but without any convincing explanation. Tis book aims to provide that explanation ando o so hough he cocep of hghe law.

Somemes splays such as he oe a he Uvesy of Vga,publc paye, o ohe such foms of elgous expesso, ae efeeo smssvely as “ceemoal esm” o “cvl elgo.” eec, hey

ae sa o o be elgous a all. Bu he clams ha jusce s eal, haghs ae hee, ha he uvese s meagful, o eve ha hees a ese amog huma begs fo absolue meag, ae o baal osmplsc. Tey ae a he hea of a fuameal culual spue heealy wey-s ceuy. We wll eu o hs spue he chapesha follow.

Usually agumes lke he oe am makg, ha welcome elgoo he publc squae, woul be mae by a elgous beleve a woul

he be oppose by obeleves. Bu a chage he culual saus of seculasm has occue ha has alee hs coex. am poposg aew law of chuch a sae as a seculas, he eess of a healhy seculasm.

Seculass wll scuss hs book, oably Aus Dacey, CheRaymo, a Aé Come-Spovlle, amog ohes, ae hkg abousecularism in a new way, including its commitments to truth and to spiri-

tuality. Although these thinkers disagree profoundly among themselveso may opcs, hey pobably woul all asse o he ea ha s osuce fo seculasm o jus be a-elgo. A secula cvlzaoees o asse moe ha ha o be healhy.

As a secularist myself, I have been part of this recent secular ferment. Assumg ha oe ay hee wll be a geuely auoomous seculaculture in America, I have been wondering what that culture will be like.I have noticed that among some legal thinkers who champion the separa-

o of chuch a sae, hee s a assumpo ha moal elavsm spa a pacel of a secula publc squae. Seve Gey s a goo exampleof this tendency because he is aware of, and open about, his assumptions.



I n t rdt in xx

fea ha he secula commme o he sepaao of chuch a sae will slide into other commitments, such as an instinctive rejection of theoo of he objecve exsece of values.

So wha s a sake ecocepualzg chuch a sae oeto permit government to endorse a common core of values oen as-socae wh elgo s o keep a culual space ope fo pespecvesohe ha elavsm, maealsm, a humasm. s a aemp osmulaeously expa a shape he ebae ha s gog o oay

wh seculasm. Whou hs culual space, a secula socey mgh self emeshe elavsm a eve hlsm whou eve acu-

ally coscously choosg ha pah.Pope Benedict XVI recently said something that is very close tohe seme hs book. Te Pope vse he Ue Saes Apl2008. Reecg lae o ha vs, he was quoe as sayg ha “ smulculual plualy . . . foue o he bass of a ‘happy maage’of religious principles [and] political rights” the United States “is anexample of healhy seculasm.”4

Tese wos by he Pope eec a ackowlegme ha Ameca

s secula ow mpoa ways. Te Pope was o cczg ha oseekg o chage . He was suggesg, howeve, ha Ameca lfe scuely as healhy as s—as hopeful, as uhful, a as ope—pa because of Ameca’s elgous heage. Uspoke by he Pope, bueveheless o be feae, s he possbly ha f ha elgous heagefaes fom publc coscousess, Ameca lfe may come o expess aee k of seculasm, oe ha s o so healhy. Ts book agues

fo a vba a elgously ope seculasm. s a aemp o efue aaow secula sae poso a o suppo sea a sae suppoveof eep a echg spual l fe.

In addition to my fears for secularism, there is another reason to

popose a ew uesag of he elaoshp of chuch a sae ahs me. Te cue composo of he Ue Saes Supeme Couis quite supportive of the public expression of religion. Te current Courts o gog o emove he wos “ue Go” fom he Plege of Al-

legiance or limit public subsidies for school voucher programs or doayhg else alog hose les. Lgas suppog elgous expes-so he publc squae o o ee hs book o succee he cous.



xxv I n t rdt in

A ha wll ema ue fo a log me, eve hough he Democascapue he Whe House a eae cool of Cogess he 2008eleco.

Bu, whle mgh appea ha agee wh he Cou majoy hese aeas, he eae wll see ha my uesag of elgous m-agey a s ole publc lfe s much moe clusve ha ha of hecue Cou majoy. Ta majoy may be wllg o embace Jews,Chsas, a, o a lesse exe, Muslms, bu a he expese o oly of obeleves, bu of Buhss, Hus, a ohe moy elgous

beleves. A ha Cou majoy seems pose o o hs he ame

of a false a escve veso of Ameca hsoy. Te Cou husseems o be posog self o cool maes ha shoul be le opeo fuhe culual a polcal evelopme, a o be og so o he

bass of culual wes a loses. woul lke o subsue a ee uesag of he elao-

ship among majority believers, minority believers, and nonbelievers.Ts book ams o fee boh seculasm a elgo fom ou cue

wooe caegoes so ha ascee ealy, whch s a pa of hghe

law, boaly coceve, wll o loge be use as a weapo polcala legal coess. hope ha we wll soo be usg he wo “Go,”a ohe elgous symbols, o o suppo a secaa pogam, bu oevoke commitments that are actually widely shared among believersa obeleves.

Te legal heos Roal Dwok obseve hs book Is Democ-

racy Possible Here? ha Ameca s ve ove he ole elgo shoul

play polcs a publc lfe. He suggess ha ebae abou hese ma-es mus “e a ebae abou compeg eals” ahe ha aboupacula pacces.6 Dwok he oes wo moels o llusae hechoces befoe us:

Amecas agee o oe cucally mpoa pcple: ou goveme mus beolea of all peaceful elgous fahs a also of people of o fah. Bu fom

wha base shoul ou oleace spg? Shoul we be a el gous ao, collec-vely comme o values of fah a woshp, bu wh oleace fo elgous

moes clug obeleves? O shoul we be a ao comme o ho-oughly secula goveme bu wh oleace a accommoao fo peopleof elgous fah? A elgous ao ha oleaes obelef? O a secula aoha oleaes elgo?7



I n t rdt in xxv

f ha o choose bewee hese wo moels, woul choose hesecula sae, fo easos ha Dwok peses. Bu s my hope ha

we ca avo hs k of ehe/o ecso. f we have o choose be-

wee hese moels, he oucome of evey eleco wll be uece by voting along the religion-or-secular-state line. Every election will be somehg of a efeeum o Go’s ole he publc squae. Tssceao woul be ufouae fo Ameca may ways, a oceha he Democac Pay seems axous o avo ha k of cou-g elecoal ve.

Ts book suggess sea ha hee ca be a coeco bewee

religion and at least certain forms of secularism that blurs the distinctionDwok s shapeg. Ts s o a mae of polcal compomse, buof seeg eal coecos. Relgous magey he publc squae usou o coa mya meags ha asce elgo a may hus

bge he elgous vsos ha exs amog us.Ts book pocees alog a smple famewok. Pa 1 ses foh he

Esablshme Clause css a ecous how eos o esolve havefale. Pa 2 poposes goveme speech eosg hghe law a us-

g elgous magey o o so, a leas pa, as a soluo o he css.Pa 3 agues ha seculasm self s a a cossoas a ha he accep-tance of a higher law orientation would be the beginning of a reformation

wh seculasm.Te relationship between parts 2 and 3 is key. As the third book

he logy, a hghe law Esablshme Clause s he cosuoalheoy beh a cea k of seculasm. Ta cosuoal heoy

a ha seculasm mus go ogehe.

Documents

Church, State, and the Crisis in American Secularism (excerpt)