Politicizing Religion

It started with Earl Warren

I have noticed an interesting trend on the radical left recently. Parts of the left are engaged in a propaganda war aimed at “taking back religion” from the right. Or at least neutralizing it. On a stroll through a local Barnes & Noble the other day I spotted at least three new books bemoaning the involvement of religion in the political process. This is becoming a common theme. Fear of “theocracy” - which is, of course, a ludicrous term - appears to be widespread on the outer reaches of the left. This makes sense politically. Perhaps the strongest single presence refusing to yield to the secular “progressive” juggernaut is the religious right.

A dispassionate observer might find this all a little peculiar. What an interesting concept, this notion that religious belief, symbolism and custom have no place in politics (or anywhere in the public square). What a humongous leap from “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. How did we get to this rather odd place?

Certainly not from the Constitution. The simple words quoted above are all that the Constitution has to say about it. And it is stunningly clear that the Founding Fathers – while not an overly pious bunch – believed that ethical education in general and religious moral grounding in particular were indispensable components of the democratic experiment. Jefferson’s much vaunted “Wall of Separation” was designed to reassure a group of American Jews that the government wouldn’t restrict their ability to practice their religion, not to prevent religion from influencing government and politics.

Throughout the course of American history it was taken for granted that religion was an indispensable component of public and political life. It was an animating force behind many key “reform” movements, including the Abolition Movement (yay!) the Temperance Movement (boooo!) and the Civil Rights Movement (yay!, until about 1975, then Boo!).

What happened to change this? Well, to put it in modern business terms, it’s an issue of scope creep. Until very recently in American life the vast majority of social customs, rules and laws were completely beyond the scope of the federal government. This makes sense in that the Constitution makes no mention of them whatsoever. Most were beyond the scope of state governments. Social customs were largely defined and enforced by non-governmental social institutions, including the family, churches, fraternal organizations and charities. Social changes occurred mostly through the rough and tumble of social evolution. Some social rules were codified in state laws, but virtually none were governed by federal law or rules.

What changed that stable model was the Warren Court’s war on social institutions. Delighted to serve as the judicial arm of the secular humanist progressive movement of the early and mid 20th Century, the Warren Court dove into expansion of the federal government’s role in governing social life with Brown v Board of Education in 1954. Today this is seen as a necessary and health decision by the great majority of Americans (I am not one of them). Although it pushed through a very necessary social change, by doing so it set the precedent for meddling in the social customs and mores of the nation. Anxious to implement its agenda, the Warren Court began to remove from the people the right to decide how to govern their social lives. From birth control to “school prayer” to abortion to “gay rights” the Courts have looked the American people in the eye and said “Shut up rednecks, you don’t have a say in this.” They foisted the coastal secular progressive culture on all Americans.

Now, if you were a coastal secular progressive sort of person this all was quite uncontroversial. But let’s assume you were a flyover religious conservative sort of person. This all began to feel downright aggressive and, well, tyrannical.

Ironically many of the folks being told to shut up and go away were loyal Democrats. As the Democratic Party began to line up behind the secularist agenda, they had only one place to go. And so began the great realignment that has brought us to our current red/blue divide.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were two early pioneers in organizing the scorned faithful. The newly coined “religious right” began to fight back. And they continue to fight back. They must, because the attacks on traditional religious mores do not stop. The secularist left continues to seek to expand the scope of federal involvement in social issues. What that really means is that they continue to try to dictate to the rest of us how we need to live.

The “religious right” didn’t start this fight. The secular left did. It is almost amusing to see them still trying to convince us that we need to go hide in the dark corners of our churches and let them make all the important decisions. Arrogant doesn’t begin to describe it.

Archives of "The View from the Ground"

Send an e mail to Patrick J. Shanahan

Visit his website at: