Religious Expression and the American Constitution (review)

Franklyn Haiman begins by declaring that he is an agnostic and neutral on matters of religious faith (p. ix). The remaining five paragraphs of the preface, however, reveal Haiman to be something different. Indeed, it is fair to describe him as a secular fundamentalist who would depreciate religion and dismiss it as an irrational phenomenon that has no legitimacy in the world of public policy or law. Religion has given rise to horrible evils, Haiman avers, from Osama bin Laden to the Ku Klux Klan. Even in its milder forms, it has cultivated "dogmatic self-righteousness" (p. ix) and led to great crimes. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the sixteenth-century religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, and the twentieth-century terror campaigns in northern Ireland are ritually condemned in a single breath-taking paragraph (pp. ix–x).

A believer might respond to this astonishing screed on at least three levels. One might point out the lack of balance in Haiman's polemic: the vast majority of the truly monstrous crimes against humanity of the last two centuries have been committed in the name of irreligion, atheism, modernity, and the secular state. From the French Revolution's Reign of Terror to Stalinism, Nazism, and Maoism, the mass murders and genocides of the last two hundred years have been almost exclusively the work product of secularists.

A second response might be to argue that the great religions have embedded within themselves an ethic of love. To take Christianity: Jesus Christ called his followers to be peace-makers; to be humble; to love their neighbors without limit; and to be prepared to lay down their lives in obedience to these commands should such be demanded of them.

A third answer, finally, is to consider the soundness of Haiman's thesis, which purports to be an historical justification for a secular fundamentalist reading of the constitutional tradition.

In chapter one, entitled "Historical Background," Haiman contrasts Christianity with other faiths. The ancient world was filled with a rich diversity of religious experience, such as Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shintoism. Haiman, however, wishes to consider only Christianity's relationship to political power. Again, he presents a deformed caricature, a travesty of a rich and complex history. Haiman introduces the life and ministry of Jesus Christ by stating: "The books of the New Testament . . . planted seeds for the centuries of anti-Semitism that followed . . ." (p. 2). Christianity's claim to be "the only 'true religion,'" led to further pogroms against Jews (p. 10). When Islam appeared on the scene, yet more warfare ensued. Eventually, Christians brought their genocidal ways to the New World eradicating Native American cultures and peoples.

No doubt, Christians justified anti-Semitism by reference to the Gospel and Conquistadores committed many depredations in the New World. But Haiman's lack of balance, again, astonishes. Haiman has no desire to present an historically accurate account of Christianity's relationship with political power or the larger non-Christian world. His intent, rather, is crude and obvious: he wishes to denounce Christianity, thus justifying a militantly secular interpretation of the Constitution.

Haiman's larger constitutional claims are riddled with inaccuracies and anachronisms. One might take his account of the origins of the Constitution and the First Amendment. "'Christian America' advocates," Haiman asserts, like to point to the Christian influence still felt by the many European settlers who came to North America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (p. 8). While these advocates for a Christian America also point to the religious establishments found in many of the thirteen colonies, they fail to appreciate that Christianity had no role to play in "the creation of the United States" (p. 8) (emphasis in original). Thus, Haiman implies, the Constitution was meant to embody secular values and should be so interpreted today.

Haiman, however, glosses over the real history of the relationship of religion and the formation of the United States. He ignores the plain purpose of the Constitution, which...