Where’s the Beef?

There is what appears to be a petty debate going on in the Christian progressive world — a debate that seems to be more about language than substance but is somehow provoking ire between contingents that agree on most issues and should be natural allies.

On one side are those of us who tend to put the emphasis on our religious rights rather than on our prohibitions.  We stress that the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom means we can practice and express our religion pretty much as we please.  We can do it at church; we can do it at home; we can do it on the streets; we can do it at work; we can do it in school.  In short, we get to be who we are.

There are clearly exceptions to this rule.  Most controversially, but also must obviously, the government itself cannot promote one religion over another — and thus, no one acting as an agent of the government may do so, either.  A public school teacher therefore can’t teach Scripture as truth.  Nor should the military refuse to recognize a fallen soldier’s religion at his funeral.  And a government agency deserves a severe judicial smackdown when it denies a religious group’s request for funding because the group is non-Christian.

By the same token, however, a second-grader who wants to sing a religious song in a school talent show — and a high school valedictorian who wants to thank the Lord in her graduation speech — have every right to do so, notwithstanding the school districts that have tried to silence such students.  The key question is whether the government itself is endorsing one religion over another or merely allowing regular citizens to express their religious beliefs.  The former is unconstitutional; the latter is constitutionally required.

Many of us who have this emphasis prefer not to use the term “separation of church and state” to describe our religious liberty.  After all, most folks who like that term don’t really promote an absolute, non-negotiable dividing line between the two realms.  They understand that citizens are often within their rights to express religious beliefs in a public or even government context.  A few secularists seem to have contempt for religion in general, and at times their voice seems disproportionately loud, particularly among pop cultural figures in the mold of Bill Maher.  But the vast majority of Americans, religious or not, respects faith and understands it has a place in public life.  The “separation” language thus gives a false impression to many Americans who don’t want to keep their religious beliefs in a box.

That’s why I prefer saying “religious freedom” or “the free exercise of religion.”  These phrases get to the heart of the matter: the government must preserve an open society where people can worship (or not) as they please.  The government’s role, for the most part, is not to shut people up or keep people out.

So what’s the other side of this intra-progressive debate?  Where’s the disagreement?  Well, to be honest, I’m not quite sure.  But whatever it is, it sure seems to fire people up.

I’m referring specifically to bah-humbuggers like Frederick Clarkson who insist not only on maintaining the “separation of church and state” language — which is perfectly defensible in its own right — but also on vilifying and misrepresenting those of us who feel otherwise.

On the Talk2Action blog, he has attacked a handful of folks — Jim Wallis, Barack Obama, Mara Vanderslice, Eric Sapp, and me, among others — for our views (or at least words) on religious freedom.  A few weeks ago, when Mr. Clarkson and others leveled these attacks on Mara, in particular (see here, here, and here), I responded in her defense.  When he lashed back, I replied here.

After reading his latest rejoinder in this rather bizarre and unproductive debate, I’ve concluded that any further point-by-point rebuttal would be useless.  Mr. Clarkson misrepresents my arguments so thoroughly that I’m really not sure where to begin, and no longer have any interest in doing so.  I won’t bother to spell out his distortions — that’s the point, no matter how convenient he finds that posture to be — but masochistic readers should feel free to read the back-and-forth and see for themselves.

What I will do is pose a question to anyone on the “separation” side of this nebulous yet somehow vitriolic debate.  What are the specific, faith-related activities you believe are unconstitutional that we, on the “free exercise” side, tend to believe are permissible?

Faith-based initiatives?  Voluntary prayer in schools?  Something else? 

What, exactly, are the policy-relevant distinctions between your views and ours?  As far as I can tell, that’s the most relevant issue at hand.  I’m really not interested in baseless cheap shots about how we’re “the ideological descendents of those who didn’t like the constitution when it was written, and don’t like it now [see the very bottom – JL].”  If there’s a substantive debate to be had, please present a case so we can get on with it.  On anything else, others can have the last word.