The Role of Religion in U.S. Society

The role of religion in the United States is regulated by the First Amendment. The courts have, rightfully, taken on the responsibility of interpreting the religion clause in that document. What has happened is that the Supreme Court's decisions have resulted in removing religion from public activity. As most know, the concept of the Separation of Church and State was first expressed in Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural as governor of Virginia. His intent was to prevent the Massachusetts model (strong Puritan influence) from happening there.

With that as background, "the metaphorical separation of church and State originated in an effort to protect religion from the State, not the State from religion."[i] By inverting the intent of the amendment, it seems that the courts have made it possible for the State to regulate Christianity in a way the amendment was determined to prohibit.

Following the Supreme Court ban on prayer in the schools, emboldened secularists have waged a campaign to remove Christian expression from all official public forums. However, it has not ended there. Those who might want to include Judeo-Christian values as being evidence in public policy are most often dismissed as being irrelevant at best or dangerous at worst.

The consistent message of modern American society is that whenever the demands of one's religion conflict with what one has to do to get ahead, one is expected to ignore the religious demands and act ... well ... rationally.[ii]

Having lived for eight years in West Berlin, I had the opportunity to observe the position of the East German government on religious liberty. In that society, freedom of religion was guaranteed to all citizens. However, it was against the law for citizens to give voice to their beliefs outside of their homes or their congregation. Likewise, the exercise of one's freedom to be religious, even within those parameters, did not mean that there would not be a social/political price to pay. Such individuals would be shunned, could be denied access to higher education, good jobs or promotion at work, travel privileges, and more. In certain instances, treatment of those who practice their faith openly in America seems to be moving in that direction. Stephen Carter has written, "You are free to believe as you like, but, for goodness sake, don't act on it."[iii]

We are also living in a cultural complexity in which many religious traditions have a stake in religious freedom. The question is, to what extent their rights to express their traditions are protected, and to what extent they can bring their beliefs into the public square for discussion. For example, does Sharia Law have the same right to be considered in the discussion over public policy as Judeo-Christian beliefs? If not, does the constitution allow for that religious prohibition?

If this is the condition of the State vs. religion debate, then new rules need to be established that allow for non-prejudicial dialogue. To commemorate the bi-centennial signing of the United States Constitution, the Brookings Institution convened a diverse group of religious leaders. Leaders from the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and secularist traditions met to contemplate how, within the Constitution, religious dialogue might be structured. The result of their work, over several years, was published as a book, Williamsburg Charter. Central to their deliberations were the "three R’s of religious liberty in a pluralistic society: rights, responsibilities, and respect".[iv] This troika of trust is spelled out in the Charter itself. Those who claim the right:

1.    to dissent should assume the responsibility to debate.

2.    to criticize should assume the responsibility to comprehend.

3.    to influence should accept the responsibility not to inflame.

4.    to participate should accept the responsibility to persuade.[v]

The product of listening and persuasion within a climate of respect will go a long way in recapturing responsibility in the framework of freedom. Such an endeavor is more likely to spawn a productive dialogue, than a divisive confrontation.

Most churches are ministering in communities where an increasing percentage of people are not positively disposed toward the Church or the gospel. Just a few musings…

What role does the Church have in this kind of context?
How will your church meet this challenge to the continued viability of the gospel?

---

[i] Carter, Stephen L. The Culture of Disbelief: How Americans Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion. New York: Basic Books, 1993, p. 105.

[ii] Ibid. p. 13..

[iii] Ibid., p. 130.

[iv] Brookings Institute. "The Williamsburg Charter." Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace: The Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy. Ed. James Edison Hunter and Os Guiness. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 1990, p. 11.

[v] Ibid, pp. 141-143.