Kicking God Out of the Public Square

Christians frequently accuse liberals and secularists of wanting to "kick God out of the public square." Of course, were liberals and secularists actually trying to evict God (himself) from any particular arena, they’d find the going pretty rough. If someone were plotting to kick God out of Honolulu, I’d laugh and say "good luck." I wouldn’t worry too much. God can take care of himself.

This means that the liberal/secularist project of "kicking God out of the public square" is not an attack on God at all. It is an attack on Christians and other religiously inspired folks. But what kind of attack?

Many think of it as an attack on the foundations of our nation. Prior to 1960, Americans predominately understood our laws, constitution, customs, and social order as based on the principles of Christianity and resting on the authority of God. Anyone who doubts this need only read appellate court decisions rendered prior to 1960, where they will find numerous acknowledgments and affirmations of this view of our nation. However, over the last fifty years the courts and society at large have abandoned the traditional "Christian" view for a more secular interpretation of our nation’s meaning and origin. A view more conducive to our ever increasing pluralism.

Truth be told, we are debtors to John Locke for the foundational assumptions of our democratic and constitutional order. But that doesn’t really matter. There was a long standing and widely shared conviction that the United States was a "Christian nation." Many Christians understandably feel that the changes that have occurred over the last fifty years amount to a theft of their Christian nation - and they’re working to take America back.

Much of the effort to take America back has focused on securing Government endorsement of Christian symbols. That’s what the fights over keeping "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and displaying the Ten Commandments on the courthouse walls are all about. Personally, I’ve never gotten particularly worked up about these fights. I think small compromises regarding symbolism pay big dividends. Having won all the major battles over the last fifty years, the secularists and liberals should be magnanimous in victory as the price of a fuller peace.

Yes, I realize this response is patronizing. When the take America back coalition accuses secularists and liberals of wanting to "ban God from the public square," they’re not saying that the winners should be gracious and grant them a few symbolic victories. They’re saying that Christian symbols deserve government endorsement because they represent the correct view of the nation. I disagree for a number of reasons. However, because I don’t oppose government endorsement of Christian symbols, I feel no obligation to tackle the real argument. If anyone wants an account of my disagreement on this issue, let me know.

What the debate over symbols demonstrates, with unmistakable clarity, is that the "public square" referenced in the accusation concerns the formation of government policy, be it about symbols or other matters. The take America back coalition believes that secularists and liberals want to preclude Christians from citing divine authority, including biblical teaching, as legitimate grounds for public policy. That’s what it really means to "kick God out of the public square." The fight over symbols is relatively meaningless compared to the fight over whether divine authority is a legitimate basis for public policy.

My view? The secularists and liberals have this one right. Consider the following argument.

Any proposed governmental policy can either be justified by appealing to grounds that are universally recognized as valid - e.g. public necessity, social utility, the national interest - or it cannot. If a policy can be justified by appealing to universally accepted grounds, the policy is justified and the fact that it may also be supported by religious teaching is irrelevant.

However, if a policy cannot be justified by appealing to universally accepted grounds, but instead requires an appeal to an explicitly religious authority, imposing it on people who don't share the religious premises amounts to sectarian totalitarianism.

So, with regards to government policy, religious authority is either irrelevant or illiberal. Either way it is illegitimate and should not be invoked.

What do you know. God should be kicked out of the public square. Can that be right?

Joe H.