2 of 6

Well, no, the country hasn't been resolute about keeping faith out of the public sphere—that is, keeping religious belief private, with no public consequences in the areas of business, family, public policy, community building, social services, ethnic and racial relations, promoting justice, et cetera.

The historical reasons for erecting Jefferson's wall are worth restating—for exactly the opposite reason that Shorto does so. It wasn't religion that was so combustible—it was the state's abuse of power that caused great concern. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, where that phrase was first used, was intended as a political statement against George III and the Tories. Jefferson was far more concerned about the state telling people how to worship than about worshipers telling the state how to rule. (Again, for those interested in how the phrase got turned on its head, check out Philip Hamburger's Separation of Church and State, recently published in a paperback edition from Harvard University Press.)

The king is dead, however. Shorto repeatedly suggests that America has more to fear from church than from state, warning of "recent religion-inspired violence," "Islamic terrorism," "a rippling of Christian muscle," "aggressive [Christians] pushing a religious agenda on social issues," "religious harassment," "discrimination," and that loaded word, "proselytizing."

The implication throughout the piece is that, while we probably shouldn't actually pass laws stopping religion in the workplace, believers should voluntarily lay off the God-talk until they're by themselves, at home, in their closets.

"As Christianity moves into a broader arena, directly confronting some of the social mores that an open, secular society is built on, it presents a new challenge," Shorto writes. "A question that will probably be asked as the movement grows is, This is legal, but is it right? Protecting religion and religious expression is one hallmark of American society. Another is protecting [religious] minorities."

It's encouraging to see The New York Times asking, "This is legal, but is it right?" (Would that it do so more often.) But it's a pity that Shorto sees those two hallmarks as competing principles: One expects that those he interviewed do not see such a dichotomy—both are rooted in "the rights of conscience." And the right of belief is worthless without a concomitant ability to share that belief.

Shorto believes, "There is probably no more insidious form of bullying than religion." Does such "bullying" include a Christian telling a Hindu, "You are worshiping a false god, and risk eternal damnation"? What if a Christian told a Muslim, "You should not practice your religion here"? Is that bullying? What if a secularist who believes all religions are corrupted told religious believers, "It is wrong to share your religion at work." Is that bullying?

Strange-sounding stuff, indeed.

The idiot and theodicy
New York University's religion blog, The Revealer, says it has found "a succinct, perversely funny, brilliantly-narrated, near-perfect piece of religion journalism." Weblog wouldn't go quite that far (it's more a tale of a psychopath than it is of religion). But we urge you to read "Death Is Result of Debate About God," from last Thursday's Detroit Free Press. Here's how it begins:

next page... |  2 of 6

share this page

November (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48