I rarely find myself on the same page with Charles Krauthammer’s positions regarding politics. But his recent editorials sounding the alarm bell about an "Overdose of Public Piety" (another one here) had me nodding my head enthusiastically in agreement. In fact Krauthammer’s no-nonsense summary reflects much more closely my own stance on the distinction between public and private declarations of faith than the intellectual debate over atheism and religion that is currently unfolding within the ivory towers among intellectuals of all stripes – atheists, religionists and the rational apologists for religion.
Some relevant passages from the article (do read the whole thing):
Mitt Romney declares, "Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Barack Obama opens his speech at his South Carolina Oprah rally with "Giving all praise and honor to God. Look at the day that the Lord has made." Mike Huckabee explains his surge in the polls thus: "There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."
This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it’s only going to get worse. I’d thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN–YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, "Do you believe every word of this book?" — and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.
Instead, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee bent a knee and tried appeasement with various interpretations of scriptural literalism. The right answer, the only answer, is that the very question is offensive. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for office. And while that proscribes only government action, the law is also meant to be a teacher. In the same way that civil rights laws established not just the legal but also the moral norm that one simply does not discriminate on the basis of race — changing the practice of one generation and the consciousness of the next — so the constitutional injunction against religious tests is meant to make citizens understand that such tests are profoundly un-American. …
A certain kind of liberal argues that having a religious underpinning for any public policy is disqualifying because it is an imposition of religion on others. Thus, if your opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious belief in the ensoulment of life at conception, you’re somehow violating the separation of church and state by making other people bend to your religion.
This is absurd. Abolitionism, civil rights, temperance, opposition to the death penalty — a host of policies, even political movements, have been rooted for many people in religious teaching or interpretation. It’s ridiculous to say that therefore abolitionism, civil rights, etc., constitute an imposition of religion on others.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with having a spirited debate on the place of religion in politics. But the candidates are confusing two arguments. The first, which conservatives are winning, is defending the legitimacy of religion in the public square. The second, which conservatives are bound to lose, is proclaiming the privileged status of religion in political life.
But a certain kind of conservative is not content to argue that a religious underpinning for a policy is not disqualifying. He insists that it is uniquely qualifying, indeed, that it confers some special status. (emphasis mine)
Krauthammer’s article takes a common sense position regarding religion and public life to which most reasonable religious and non-religious citizens can relate. Most of us do not care where others sense of morality and ethics come from as long as we can agree on a shared view for our society. The problem always lies in chauvinism, persecution and display of exclusionary and intrusive moral superiority. While there are unaccommodating chauvinists on both sides of the religious divide, it is foolish to argue that an even playing field currently exists regarding their numbers or spheres of influence. As society stands today in most parts of the world, the danger of religious high handedness in the civic and personal lives of others is far more significant than the much feared "science driven, cold hearted rational amorality" of the non-believers which many argue will inevitably lead to nihilistic warfare and death of all art, music and finer things of life (gasp!). Just as for most god fearing people going about their lives, the musings of Thomas Aquinas, the Sufis and the Vedic philosophers are of little consequence, similarly all atheists and agnostics are not breathlessly hanging on to every pearl of wisdom that Richard Dawkins lets fall from time to time. Tearing hairs over the minutiae of theological debates between The God Delusion or Godless Delusion are of interest only to a very few among the smart set. Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens will become politically relevant only when our politicians take their views seriously in formulating policy. Until then we have to watch out for the holy rollers in elected office with power to legislate and discriminate. And lest anyone thinks that I only bellyache about superstitions and aggression of main stream religions, please be assured that I also strictly adhere to the principle of the Separation of State and Witchcraft. (the relevant passages on page 3 of the article)
Accidental Blogger 
9 responses to “Krauthammer Hammers It Home”
Not a single JFK in the current crop of candidates, whether Democratic (where one would have expected the possibility to be higher), nor Republican.
“I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty; nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none, who can attend any ceremony, service, or dinner his office may appropriately require of him to fulfill; and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.
– John F. Kennedy
(I must note that JFK did choose to state ‘so help me God’ when quoting the presidential oath of office in the full speech, perhaps reflective of his personal convictions, though he could have left it out without straying from constitutional accuracy.)
A little tangential but interesting set of facts when I searched for information on oaths of office in different countries. Many permit that references to God can be omitted or substituted with general affirmations, while others are overtly religious and specifically refer to deities of choice (the Vatican or Iran, for instance).
In the process of proving their worthiness for the presidency, all candidates have to wear religion on their sleeves, trying to court the voting constituencies that will blindly judge only someone of faith to be worthy of the office. It doesn’t matter that candidate A or B, in their heart of hearts, feel like Mother Theresa did in her ‘dark night of the soul’. The campaign demands that the game of “I’m holier than the other candidates’ be played to the hilt.
LikeLike
This reminds me of an older post of yours. I have never understood why the oath is not taken on the US Constitution, the content of which our elected officers are expected to uphold. Who can argue with that?
LikeLike
The point of an oath is that there is some penalty implied. The Constitution doesn’t offer any explicit penalty in and of itself, though, perhaps since 42 U.S.C. 1983, pursuant to Ex parte Young, gives individuals a private right of action against individuals acting on behalf of the state for violation of the Constitution, officials could implicitly swear their oaths of office on the Constitution by simply swearing, “under penalty of law.” That, of course, begs the question of how the official interprets the law: given W’s take on sovereign immunity, I doubt such an oath would do much good (not that the religious kind has, either).
I suppose we could have officials swear, like children do, on their mother’s graves, ascertaining first, of course, that the officials in question feel well-disposed toward their mothers.
Frankly though, I’ve never been much of a believer in a natural connection between talking the talk and walking the walk. Though a non-Christian, I’ve always been a fan of Jesus’s take on oaths, which is briefly: let “yes” be your yes, and “no” be your no.
Jesus also offerred some wise counsel against ostentatious religiosity:
“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.”
Pearls before swine, I guess.
LikeLike
Thanks Anna, for explaining the technical problem with taking the oath on the Constitution. But how about an oath without a vicarious vehicle to swear upon? One hand raised, the other on the heart if you will – swearing upon one’s own honesty “under the penalty of law.” Does that count? Have there been office holders who have sworn on non-religious literature? I am sure there must have been some.
As for Jesus’ exhortation against ostentatious piety, like many other sanctimonious utterances, “What would Jesus do?” has for the cynical manipulators of relgion, become more of a bumper sticker slogan than a credo to live by. I mean Jesus would have had a couple of things to say about unbridled free market economy and the lack of social services for the needy too.
LikeLike
BTW, is everyone being taken through the comments verification process before posting? I haven’t changed anything in the website configuration. But for the last few times I have posted a comment, I had to go through what Typepad calls CAPTCHA or the word verfication step a couple of times.
LikeLike
I think that I fall in the camp of ‘Your word should be your bond’. Bush’s utterance of ‘so help me God’ hasn’t had any salutary effect on his penchant for distorting and downsizing the US Constitution, and he still manages to get away so far with impunity.
The quotation Anna mentions has evidently morphed into:
“We love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, for we must be seen by men, to earn approval. We will not be denied this reward.” by candidates for all political office in the United States.
It bears resemblance to the peacocks flaunting their feathers to prospective mates, “Pick me, pick me!” – only in this case, the plumage is overt religiosity.
LikeLike
Oaths imply a penalty or witness, I should have said. Since oath-takings for important offices are often televised these days, another formula might be “with the public as my witness, I swear to…”
Yes, I am generally, but sporadically, made to go through the verification process when I post a comment.
LikeLike
Will the public be permitted to mete out a punishment, should the oath be broken, Anna ? I was thinking putting them in stocks in a public square or wearing large scarlet letter ‘L’ ( for liar) might not be a bad idea.
I’ve been the getting the Captcha check every time I posted a comment over the last few days.
LikeLike
I had thought that the public would mete out punishment, Sujatha, but only within the boringly lawyerly framework of the “rule of law,” through which the public holds sovereign authority in a democracy. Now that you mention it, though, I like your shaming idea, which both obviates the problem about how the official chooses to interpret the law of soverign authority, and would likely hold more weight than simple conscience for the kind of shame-not-guilt personalities that go into politics.
In addition to “liar,” the scarlet “L” might also stand for “lacking,” “loser” or even, in the case of the current administration’s exploits, “lurid.”
LikeLike