so he argues in a column titled Drumming up a phony war on religion in today's Washington Post. He start with Nicki Manaj at the Grammies, writing
seen as an enemy combatant in an escalating “war on religion” being waged by “secular elites,” which seems to be used as a synonym for Democrats and the responses thereto
, then provides a reference back to Madonna, and takes off against the Republican candidates for President.
As Robinson puts it bluntly,
The “war on religion” alarmists are just like Minaj and Madonna in one key respect: Lacking a coherent point to make, they go for shock value.
Robinson reminds us that Romney
promised to rescind every “Obama regulation” that somehow “attacks our religious liberty.
.. that Gingrich says Obama plans to wage war on the Catholic Church if reelected
... that Santorum says under Obama we are headed in the direction of the French Revolution and the guillotine because of Obama's " overt hostility to faith in America" . . .
Robinson revisits the dispute with the Catholic bishops over the coverage of birth control, noting that even after the adjustment in the policy to placate them the bishop remained "implacable." He reminds us that conservatives were outraged that Obama dare at a prayer breakfast quote the Bible in arguing for economic and social justice.
But all this is ultimately preface.
In two key paragraphs, we can read the heart of Robinson's argument:
The Founders wisely decided to institutionalize separation of church and state. The references to God, the Creator and Divine Providence in the Declaration of Independence mask the fact that the Founders disagreed on the nature and existence of a Supreme Being. They understood the difference between faith and religiosity.
Within our secular governmental framework, religion has thrived. No other large industrialized nation has nearly as many regular churchgoers as does the United States.
There is a piece at Alternet worth reading in conjunction with Robinson's column. Written by Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State , it is titled
5 Brave Religious Leaders Who Fought Christian Theocracy in America, and tells about five Christian CLERGY who strongly supported separation of Church and state. These include Roger Wlliams, John Leland, and isaac Backus of the early days of what is now this nation (Williams in colonial times, the other two around the founding of the nation), J. M. Dawson of the 20th Century, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is worth noting that Williams passed through the Baptists, that Leland, Backus and Dawson were all notable Baptist clergy in their own days, with Leland having a strong influence on Jefferson (whose close friend he was), that Dawson helped persuade the United Nation to include religious liberty as an important basic human right in its founding charter. As for King, those who paid attention note how heavily influenced his preaching and advocacy were by Biblical language and Christian thought. In the conclusion of his section on King, Boston writes
King also insisted that religion and science need not fight. And, in one of his most famous passages, King reminded Americans of the different roles religion and government play in society.
“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state,” King observed. “It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”
Boston ends his piece by reminding us
Unquestionably, secularists have done great work standing up for the church-state wall and the complete religious and philosophical freedom it brings us. But they should never forget their allies in the clergy. Without them, that wall might be missing a considerable number of bricks.
Methinks that the likes of Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are displaying a basic ignorance of American History at the same time they are distorting the message of Christianity. Romney is from Massachusetts, and should remember that while the Puritans came to the New World to practice their religion free from government interference in England, they became theocratic bullies, driving the likes of Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson out, and hanging Mary Dyer and others for simply being members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Gingrich and Santorum are both Catholics who forget that Lord Baltimore sought a colony in order to allow his fellow Catholics to have a place to practice religion free from government interference, that Catholicism has been able to flourish in this country precisely because of the separation of Church and State. Since both choose to appeal towards elements of the religious right that are intolerant of views other than their own, that for all the support on matters of birth control and abortion where the religious right agrees with Catholics, when it comes to social and economic justice and capital punishment, the religious right and the Catholic church could not be more at odds.
There are elements of religious warfare in the United States, but they are initiated neither by liberal Democrats nor by the Obama administration. They come from things like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints of Mitt Romney and the Roman Catholic Church to which Gingrich and Santorum adhere at least nominally (since they both seem to ignore the social justice teachings and church's opposition to the kinds of wars they support): after all, both interfered heavily in the Prop 8 battle in California, seeking to deny rights to others that in no way interfered with their practicing their own religion. Similarly they seek to impose into law their understanding of matters of intimate relationships and choice. Santorum's willingness to ban abortion even in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother (although Karen Santorum's 1996 "medically induced miscarriage to save her life seems to represent some degree of hypocrisy) interferes with the religious practices and understanding of other faiths, including that of Judaism where unless some part of the foetus has already exited the womb the life of the mother outweighs that of the foetus. It ignores church teaching prior to the middle of the 19th Century, which is when the Catholic Church abandoned its previous emphasis on the "quickening" that occurs around 12-1 weeks, prior to which abortion was not considered a mortal sin.
All three men are willing to get in bed with religious figures who seek what is basically a theocracy, one advocated by the New Apostolic Reformation. Their model of religious structure is top down, whether it is the Vatican and the Pope, or the Prophet and the Twelve of the Mormons, a pattern readily found even the teachings of the supposedly more "moderate" Rick Warren.
It seems as if all three are willing to ascribe to the notion that if a particular view of the world and human behavior cannot be given special status, either by exemption from the laws to which the rest of us must adhere or - apparently even better by their standards - through the imposition of their views via the law upon the rest of us, somehow they are being persecuted, that those who think otherwise are waging "religious war" upon them. The Catholic Church, and here Santorum in particular seems to be in agreement, seemingly wants to cripple Griswold v Connecticut, to return to a time when birth control was against the law (remember, condoms were sold "for prevention of disease" in part to get around those laws but also as a legal protection against suits for unwanted pregnancy in case they failed), despite the fact that the vast majority of their own adherents in this country ignore their teaching. That is religious warfare on their own people, as well as on the rest of us - ironically, including Mormons - who do not see birth control as violating anything in their faith.
It would be helpful were there some on the Republican side who would speak out against this bigotry, this intolerance of dissenting views. It would be helpful if the President or others in the administration would remind us all how diverse we are as a nation, with some religions having conflicting views, and why we should not seek to impose our religious views upon those of other persuasions, including those who neither accept the idea of organized religion but themselves may be very spiritual, or those to whom religion and God are irrelevant concepts.
We have those who argue against separation of church and state. We have Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court who still wants to argue that the no establishment clause has not been fully incorporated against the states. We have public figures that denigrate other religions - whether as clergy calling Judaism a "gutter religion" or denigrating Islam, flag officers describing Allah as a false deity, and so on.
I am of a different persuasion.
Whether or not I view the doctrines and practices of a particular faith as silly, distorting Biblical texts, or even dangerous, I want to fully protect the right of people to believe what they want, at the same time as I fully accept that the secular state has a responsibility to protect all people, including those who might suffer at the implementation of particular religious beliefs: after all, our child protection laws take precedence over both those literalists who argue that "spare the rod, spoil the child" gives them complete liberty to beat their children to a pulp and over Christian Scientists who would refuse a blood transfusion that could save the life of a child.
These may seem difficult choices at times. I understand that.
I honor those who choose to live THEIR lives by a moral code with which I may disagree.
I oppose those who seek to impose their views upon the rest of us, even when I may agree with the point of view on a particular issue.
Keeping them from imposing upon others or interfering with the rights of others is a key part of what has enabled this nation to thrive.
That is not a war on religion.
Your seeking to impose your values is instead a war by some religions upon the rest of us, and that cannot be allowed to continue.