Christian, Secular or Something Else Entirely
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | March 6, 2007 |
| Vol. 4, No. 36 |
Here's a tip: If you want to know before your friends do what may well be one of the major questions of the 21st century, keep your eye on two new documents. The first is the Berlin Declaration to be released by E.U. President Angela Merkel within the month. The second is the Brussels Declaration, a statement by prominent European academicians, community leaders, and national and European politicians, which disagrees with the tenets included in the Berlin Declaration and which has already been released in response to it.
These two declarations could engage Western society for years to come -- and with no small consequences. But don't expect either one of them to raise too much discussion at the club next week.
The fact is that the most important things going on in the world are often neither the most obvious things nor the most publicized ones. I doubt, for instance, that the Enlightenment philosophers whose ideas were the undergirding of either the revolutionary American Constitution or the bloody French Revolution that followed it were much in the news before either of those events.
Now, we may be in the throes of another civilization-shaping moment in history without even being aware of it.
Oh, there have been scuffles along the way, of course, that could have alerted us to the problem.
In this case, the first shots fired over the bow have been simple ones. Court cases in the United States have argued for the admissibility of religious icons in U.S courtrooms, and students have sued for the right to pray on school grounds. I've got a friend, for instance, who used to write to me regularly about the question of prayer in schools. This is a good man who cares deeply for the country, is concerned about the moral education of young people and who simply assumes that if schools, all of them -- public as well as private -- returned to the practice of daily prayer, our whole society would be a lot better off.
He thinks it is outrageous -- a measure of everything else that is wrong about our civic morality -- that we have gotten to the point where prayer in schools can possibly be considered a breach of the principles of separation of church and state.
However, when I wrote back to ask him whose prayers he wanted said -- Jewish, Mormon, Muslim or Baptist and how we would decide which it would be -- he stopped the conversation.
The second moment in the new concern about the definition of modern society came quietly enough from Pope Benedict XVI when in his inaugural homily to the world, he called on Europe to remember its Christian roots and foreswear what he called "rampant relativism."
But perhaps the decisive political moment in the subject came when Angela Merkel, presiding president of the European Union, a confederation of 26 European States -- now, incidentally, considering the membership of Muslim Turkey -- calls in the Berlin Declaration for an inclusion in the E.U. Constitution that "recognizes Europe's Christian roots and the acknowledgement of Europe's Christian God."
The question raised by the Brussels Declaration is whether such a move is really good for religious freedom or not.
The Brussels Declaration makes two points: First, that the ideal environment for all religions is not the theocratic state -- the state that defines itself as identified by some single religion -- but the secular state. Secondly, the Brussels Declaration points out that secularism and atheism are not synonyms. The secular state, the document argues, is not anti-religion. It is not atheistic. It is, instead, anti-establishmentarianism. It identifies itself with no particular religion and so it privileges no single religion. As a result, the document declares, it protects the right of all religions to practice without recrimination.
We may never have needed the distinctions more. Western society is becoming highly multicultural and polyglot in its religions. The most rapidly expanding population in the United States, for example, is not Christian but Muslim. The Christian nature of Western society that could once be taken for granted is becoming increasingly blurred. So what are we now -- really?
Clearly, the issue, however understated in the public mind, has the incendiary capacity to divide a nation. The question may be a quiet one, but it is not an unimportant one. On its answer may well rest the character of nation states in times to come. Are we Christian countries that admit non-Christians to citizenship? Or are we secular states that protect the practice of all religions but identify the state with no single one of them?
The first response, of course, is to gasp. How can anyone even begin to question the place and impact of Christianity in the West? But "place and impact" are not the question. The question is whether or not Western governments have their foundation in uniquely Christian principles and ideals or on the ideals and ethical principals common to all the great religions. Is the Christian law, for instance, the basis for Western law as sharia is the basis of Islamic states?
And if so, what happens if and when another cultural-religious heritage becomes the ethos of the region. Then will those laws change?
Is government incapable of justice unless it is identified with a given religion? Or, alternatively, is a government capable of being truly, legally just if it is identified with a given religion?
The question is not a very exciting one -- at least not at first glance. But it may be one of the most important Western questions since the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
So, does it really matter now whether we declare ourselves to be a Christian government or a secular government? I wondered that myself till I noticed Note 1 of the Brussels Declaration which contends "that the Muslim Council of Britain has published a 72-page book of 'Guidance for British Schools' to 'accommodate' Muslim students. These steps include segregation of the sexes, that Muslim dress code should take precedence over a school's own dress code, that school restaurants should serve only halal meat and end swimming, dancing and other activities."
From where I stand, it seems to me that we better not leap too quickly to determine if we see ourselves as a Christian state or as a secular state without a great deal of thought. As the demographic profile of the nation changes, we may all have prayer in schools. But which prayers they'll be as religion and cultures shift in their influence could be anybody's guess.
Maybe we should start to pay more attention than we are to this very quiet, unexciting question.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
You know, so many of the
You know, so many of the things around Islam are like redux Catholicism to me. The dietary things. The hats at church, the veils (old style habits), the compulsions to observe certain days of holiness. These were the the things that set us apart, particularly in the 50's and 60's. For better or worse, some things have morphed.
I think the hajib and the abaya and even the burqa are Islamic items that catholicism should be especially respectful of, as the habit and the cassock have been respected in the past.
I think the security issues have to be dealt with and there is no doubt that it presents a challenge. Even though privacy people will howl, why not allow these people to utilize both photo and fingerprint. True, a cop doing a traffic stop will need technology to help him confirm the identifying fingerprint but I don't think that sounds farfetched.
We have to work to actively solve our problems and respect religious differences as we wanted to be respected when our practices called for overt clothing, dietary and behavior demands.
As we ponder prayer in
As we ponder prayer in school not only should we ask what prayers will be said but also - will everyone be allowed to pray? Will we allow prayers to the Greek Gods, Roman Gods? Will we permit a Satanist to lead prayers? What about believers in the occult - will they be given the opportunity to profess their faith before a captive audience?
Fortunately we don’t have to answer these questions due to the wisdom and experience of our nations founders who provided us with Separation of Church and State. Freedom of religion and its less heralded associate, freedom from religion, are part of the makeup of this country’s greatness - part of the attraction that drew thousands of immigrants out of the religious discord of Europe to this land. Protection and preservation of freedoms like these will ensure that we remain a strong and viable nation, under God.
Not only did our nation's
Not only did our nation's founders have the example of Europe to avoid, but right here in the New World, they had the Bay Colony and its Witch Trials as an example of what might happen if when a fundamentalist religious group is in control. On the other hand, they also had Rhode Island as an example of what to aspire to in terms of religious tolerance.
Sr. Joan, Secularism is not
Sr. Joan,
Secularism is not a neutral position for the government to take (and it certainly isn't the morally "correct" position under which all religions can flourish). In each historical case where secularism becomes the official position of the government in regard to religion, that state very quickly begins killing its own people and targeting Catholics. Secularism in government had its most obvious beginnings in the French Revolution (contrary to your claim, American Independence was not the result of a secular/enlightenment revolution, but was overwhelmingly the product of Christianity), and what history witnessed was the Bloody Terror which was significantly aimed at Catholic religious (think the Dialogues of the Carmelites). We saw a repeat of this pattern in Germany, Spain, Russia, Poland, Mexico and even in America.
Read Philip Hamburger's "Separation of Church and State" (Harvard Press) which is considered the authority on the subject in America. This introduction of American secularism was directly an attack on Catholicism in origin and execution. The doctrine of separation was a major departure from the vision of the Founding Fathers who cautioned that our democratic republic would fail UNLESS the government positively promoted Judeo-Christian faith and morality among the people. The secular doctrine was introduced by judicial fiat by a majority of avowed secularist and anti-Catholics on the Supreme court. Within years of this decision, we saw the introduction of legalized abortion mandated from the top down by judicial fiat - a form of sanitized democide.
The plain history shows us that if you want to preserve a classically liberal democracy where everyone's rights are protected, you need a state where the laws are rooted in Judeo-Christianity - no other system of thought, be that Muslim or secular, can adequately defend the basis of human rights. Absent a Judeo-Christian framework, there will be some citizens who are less human than others (and so can be eliminated) and eventually that state will openly persecute Catholics (as we are beginning to see here in America).
The reality is that secularism is not neutral in theory or in practice, this is because the movement towards "secularism" is actually the public face of occultism.
You are correct about the future, it is a fight for the underpinnings of our civilization. It will either be Muslim or Christian, but the "something else" is not secularism, it is occultism.
Honestly, between the choices of Islam and secularism/occultism, I would choose the former over the latter to predominate. Obviously, Judeo-Christian culture and law are the only viable option for our future.
As Rhaner once said, this century will be intensly religious or it will not be at all.
My Daughter, who was raaised
My Daughter, who was raaised in a Catholic home, and attended a Catholic University, is now (at 53) Secular Humanist. I subscribed to their news letter for a year, and I found interesting articles on many subjects, however I never read anything about the occult.
I have since moved to be near her,as she is my oldest child, and wants wants to take care of my husband and I. I attended one of their meetings, and the subject was a review of a best selling book, "Why Civilizations Collapse". The review and following discussions were very interesting. there was no mention of the occuult.
It would be interesting to know where you got such information.
Hello Sr. Joan, Your article
Hello Sr. Joan,
Your article was brilliant and you made excellent points. I live in a Mormon state, Utah. We are Roman Catholics. The comment by JDKM35, asks "if you believe our country was founded upon Judeo-Christian philosphy?" Maybe so, but if one researches the biographies of our founding fathers there are some who are not quite Christian, like Thomas Jefferson. Regardless of whether our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values or not, makes little difference to a small Catholic girl or boy who will be ostracized for not being Mormon nor participating in their prayers if school prayer is allowed!
I am a mother, not a theologian, however I know that God is everywhere and that even though "school prayer" is not allowed this does not keep children who belive from praying! We CAN all pray any time, any where, without forcing our theology on someone else. There may not be many Muslims in the heartland but there is diveristy, even if one student is Jewish or atheist they have the right to attend a public school and be comfortable.
We wanted our kids to grow up with God in their schools, we sent them to parochial school all the way through high school. That's what religious schools are for, for those who want God in every aspect of their lives. We have the freedom in this great country to choose how and when we worship.
Thank you Sister ! Fr.
Thank you Sister ! Fr. Andrew Greeley has repeatedly written about the need to make prayer and worship so overwhelmingly appealing that it is patently obvious where their station is in community. You cannot compel virtuosity. It is highly insulting to the free and responsible citizen to envelop her society in a program of Puritanical reflexiveness.
I was always under the impression that the intent of the U.S. Constitution was exactly to promote just this discussion , as was the intent of Vatican II. There have arisen many important distractions along the way, however. When we talk about getting back to basics, these are the essential questions to be addressed. The Christian position, in particular, is called to set the example of humility in the face of all other traditions.
To salve the Conservative sensibility, I acknowledge that we have fashioned a powerful trend-setting dynamic in the arena of the Servants Contest. The enduring question remains as to how it will continue to be refereed. That is the serious discussion that will keep passions well directed.
Humans Grow In Virtue Not By Being Forced To Repeat Virtuous Actions But By Freely Choosing Such Actions
Sr. Joan asks some
Sr. Joan asks some compelling questions about the theocracy movement that is afoot not just in America but I think all over the world.
It is hard to know, sometimes, what to hold on to. But I think Jesus showed us the way. He loved all peoples regardless of their titles or affiliations. This gets harder and harder for us to live out as individuals seem to have an unlimited capacity for upping the ante. Bomb a mosque. Bomb a neighborhood. Kidnap and ranson. Kidnap and torture. Rendition. Denying rights (habeus corpus) to some other people. Can denying them to Americans be that far behind?
What are the underlying principles of christianity? Is it not "Love your neightbor as yourself?"
Joan, I see this clearly as
Joan,
I see this clearly as a dividing line between the secular and the religious state. The difference, from where I stand, is between the ethos of sharia and christian law. By definition, a secular state CANNOT exist under the sharia tradition.
Whether we end up defining our civilization as secular or christian is not the question. Survival of the secular state of mind itself is at risk either way.
Allah may have little to say about the pursuit of science, but he will certainly dictate our social existence and the levels of liberty he will allow. Ricky
Sr. Joan- I enjoyed this
Sr. Joan-
I enjoyed this column very much, but I want to know if you believe our country was founded upon Judeo-Christian philosophy. If it was, wouldn't it make sense to have prayer centered around Judeo-Christian beliefs? Especially in the heartland, where Islam hardly prevails.
Currently, I am reading
Currently, I am reading Chris Hedges' new book _American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America_. I am only 1/3 of the way through the book so no final pronouncements. But Hedges is well read and always intriguing to read. I think one of the "take home" ideas that will stay with me for a long time is that he says that for many people who would call themselves liberal, we pride ourselves on our tolerance. However, he says we should be cautious or careful of being tolerant of intolerance because it can become the slippery slope to complicity with crimes against people in the the name of something greater.
There is a great reason to separate our public domain from active influence of our religious domain. Obviously the best of learning is informed by religion and ethics but again we bump up against the question of _whose_ religion. Unless we want to proclaim a state religion, there is an implicit conflict here; and our forefathers avoided that implicit conflict through separation of church and state.