If one were to judge from the callers on the radio talk shows, Americans on the right are not very optimistic about the country’s future. They see our schools and public institutions falling under the control of a variety of secular humanists and are convinced that Hollywood is undermining our traditional values.
I share many of these concerns. But I would argue that there are rays of hope that should not be ignored, signs that the country may be turning around, even if slowly and nearly imperceptibly, like a battleship. I offer a recent syndicated column by Mark Shields to make the point. Shields is a life-long liberal Democrat from Massachusetts and a frequent guest on many talk shows, most notably CNN’s The Capitol Gang, where he trades barbs with conservative columnist and author Robert Novak.
Like many Democrats, Shields is seeking an answer for what happened to their party in the last election. In pursuit of that goal, he has come around to a position on the First Amendment much in line with that of conservative Christians. That is not a matter of insignificance. Far more Democrats are likely to listen to Shields than to someone like Gerry Falwell, or George Will, for that matter.
Shields is now convinced that much of the blame for the Democrats’ losses can be traced to a “runaway secularization” that has taken root in the party and alienated many mainstream Americans. He argues that liberal Democrats have distorted what is meant by the separation of church and state. To make his point, he quotes Professor Ralph Whitehead of the University of Massachusetts, whom Shields calls “a good Democrat and an even better thinker.” Says Whitehead, “Too many in the party tragically, and foolishly, confuse the cherished American doctrine of separation of church and state with the politically suicidal notion of separation of church and society.” That line could have been written by Robert Bork.
Sheilds offers some advice to the Democrats. He charges them with applying a double-standard: “A word to my fellow liberals: We cannot honor and praise the involvement of men and women of faith in our nation’s political life only when that involvement is in support of a political objective we embrace.” He asks Democrats to “recall that the greatest US political crusade of the 20th century — to legally end more than a century of officially sanctioned segregation of the races was led by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.”
He reminds Democrats that the leadership of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference “included the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Rev. Andrew Young and the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth.” He notes that Protestant clergymen led the abolitionist movement in the years before the Civil War, and that liberals praised ministers, priests and rabbis when they led the charge to stop the war in Vietnam. (I would add that the media and the academy also responded favorably to priests and nuns who were active in the labor movement, environmental causes and in efforts to increase spending for poverty programs.)
Sheilds goes even further: He scolds Democrats on the abortion question: “Democrats and liberals do trumpet one value — their own vaunted tolerance. Somehow that tolerance is never extended to any voter who opposes abortion. Nowhere was the Democrats’ intolerance more obvious than in the party leadership’s refusal to allow the nation’s most pro-worker governor…Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, from even speaking to the party’s New York Convention. Why? Because Bob Casey was pro-life. So much for tolerance.” Bull’s eye!
So, is there a chance that we could be reaching the point in our public debate where both sides will recognize that when the Left talks the separation of church and state they mean a separation of traditional values from our societal life? If we reach that point, the debate between the Left and the Right in this country will go on, but in an honest and forthright manner. We will recognize the stakes.
It should be obvious: the Left does not object to Christian support for an infusion of their values into law. They do not protest when the Christian notion of the brotherhood of man shapes laws on racial justice. They have no objection to the Christian understanding of our responsibilities for the least of our brethren inspiring support for poverty programs and laws respecting workers’ rights. They applaud when Christian teachings on peace inspire protests against the war in Iraq or spending on weapons systems. How does it work? Christians are entitled to be active politically only in causes favored by the secular Left?
Let’s be precise: the Left’s concern for the separation of church and state is limited to issues such as abortion, censorship, homosexual marriage and tax relief for parochial schools. Oh, and also when someone wants to put up a Christmas manger outside the town library. First Amendment issues are raised only when America’s Christians get their hackles up and try to thwart the secular Left’s attempt to remake America to their liking.
The First Amendment is not a matter of principle for the Left. It is a wedge that they employ to advance their agenda. Consider the recent brouhaha over the judge in Alabama who refused to remove the replica of the 10 Commandments from his courtroom. Come on: our laws against murder are based on the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”; our laws against theft are based on “Thou Shalt Not Steal”; our laws against perjury are based on “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.” No one protests the mixing of religion and politics in those instances.
But aren’t murder, theft and lying under oath different from abortion and the sexual revolution? Isn’t what we think about abortion and homosexuality based on sectarian beliefs that we have no right to impose on non-believers? No; that is not the case. We would be imposing sectarian beliefs on our fellow citizens if we forced them to be baptized or wear yarmulkes. Our moral convictions about the life of the unborn or the nature of marriage are in a different category. The Church uses right reason and an application of the natural law, the law that is binding on all humanity, when it articulates its teachings on abortion and sexuality. It does not rely solely on Revelation.
That is why there are atheists who also are convinced that abortion is murder and that marriage is, by nature, a union of one man and one woman. Their application of right reason leads them to agree with the Church in these matters. The Bible has nothing to do with how they reach their decision. And they and Christians who believe in the Bible are as entitled to exercise their rights as citizens to shape the laws of the land as those who disagree as a consequence of their reading of Freud, Marx and the deconstructionists.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
