Rick Santorum, former Senator and current presidential candidate, got into some trouble a few months back when he suggested that John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association made him want to vomit. The speech is a landmark in the history of religion and politics, helping to address concerns that Kennedy, our first and only Catholic president, would represent the people rather than his religious leaders. Now Santorum has reopened that discussion with a 2,000+ word essay for RealClearReligion explaining his position on the place of religion in American politics.
There’s a lot to say about Santorum’s comments and I suggest it for your close reading and consideration. But I want to begin with two comments on one particular paragraph about half way through, in which he writes:
Of course no religious body should “impose its will” on the public or public officials, but that was not the issue then or now. The issue is one that every diverse civilization like America has to deal with — how do we best live with our differences. Our founders’ vision, unlike the French, was to give every belief and every believer and non-believer a place at the table in the public square. Madison referred to this “equal and complete liberty” as the “true remedy.” Admittedly our country hadn’t always lived up to that ideal — in particular with respect to Jews and Catholics, thus the legitimate reason for Kennedy’s speech. But what JFK advocated sounded more like Ataturk than Madison — that religious ideas and actors were not welcome in public policy debates.
First, notice the list of religions that have been persecuted in America. Can you think of any left out? In an essay about being a Catholic and “Judeo-Christian values,” Catholics and Jews were obvious choices. But don’t you think another religion might have sprung to mind in this Republican primary season, one which witnessed mob violence so intense that followers were driven from state to state and eventually out of the country in the 1830s and 1840s? You know, to Utah (then part of Mexic0)? I suspect the Mormon example occurred to Santorum too, but I guess he wouldn’t want to bring up Romney in what is, after all, a campaign document.
Second, I am intrigued by the Ataturk reference. Santorum is clearly rejecting the Ataturk model of a nation (Turkey) founded of a secular basis to the exclusion of religion. In another place in the essay he makes the same contrast. But here’s a thought experiment: What if Ataturk had adopted the Madisonian model? Allowing free influence of Islamic religious attitudes in Turkey would likely have produced results that Santorum would be loath to embrace in the midst of this war on terror. Instead of a secular ally in the Middle East, Turkey could easily be another Islamic regime likely to have much frostier relations with both the U.S. and Israel.
In fact, the recent growing Islamic influence in the government, deteriorating the wall separating church and state established by Ataturk’s constitution. Historically, the military and courts have acted as the defenders of the secular constitution, but an Islamist party has the majority in the legislature and cabinet, which the prime minister has used to gain the upper hand over both institutions. Turkey’s relations with Israel have become strained of late, increasing the later nation’s isolation.
So, at least from a foreign policy perspective, we have every reason to be grateful that Turkey embraced the Ataturk model of keeping religion at arms length from the state. So why isn’t it good enough for America? Simple: Because Santorum’s a Christian who trusts that a Christian nation is a better nation. This points to the central problem of Santorum’s argument – only if you start from the assumptions that (1) the United States was intended to be a Christian (or “Judeo-Christian”) nation, (2) that Christianity improves government, and (3) that more religion in politics will mean more Christianity.
But, as much as Santorum might prefer his brand of conservative Christianity, he has not and cannot provide an argument of “reason grounded in truth” that clearly demonstrates it as a better foundation for government than that provided by Turkey’s Muslim majority. In fact, he can’t adequately explain why his dissensions from his own Catholic Church’s policy positions are acceptable while those of John F. Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, or other Catholic Democratic politicians are not, except for his own belief that their deviations are from “moral absolutes” while his are not.
Santorum is welcome to bring his religious views into the public sphere and argue that they form a legitimate grounds for public policy. But if he’s going to do so he must accept that others (including Mormons, Muslims, and Atheists) will do the same and that he is bound to give their religious claims, and those of his fellow Catholics, the same respect he asks for his own. Furthermore, he must be ready to answer questions about the larger implications of those claims. His op-ed doesn’t suggest to me that he’s ready to do either of those things.
Santorum profoundly misunderstands separation of church and state–a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as Santorum notes, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Doug- Thanks for the detailed background. You make your case well.