The Case for Religious Incorrectness

Church-state cases keep arising as if past decisions have settled nothing. Recently the Wisconsin high court divided evenly on the constitutionality of a voucher system that allows tax money to help subsidize the tuition costs of enrolling public school children in private sectarian schools. Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court will probably have to rule on the constitutional issue in that case. In a Mississippi school district dominated by Baptists, once the foremost champions of the separation of church and state, a Lutheran mother recently objected to school prayers and to her children being taunted for their beliefs when they refused to participate in the prayers. A federal district court upheld her objections but allowed the use of the school gym for devotional services before the start of the school day. The authors of the pithy book under review here would, like the reviewer, oppose the voucher plan and support the views of the Lutheran mother.

The authors are moderates who would allow parochial schools to benefit from public aid for the courses they offer that are like those of other certified schools. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that they have written a passionate “polemic” on behalf of “the party of the godless Constitution and of godless politics” against the religious right wing or the party of “religious correctness”—a term the authors employ as a “pejorative.” The right wing maintains that the United States was founded as a Christian nation by Christians whose beliefs should saturate public policies. The authors regard that view as “nonsense” that is historically erroneous and damaging to the country, the Constitution, public debate, and especially to school children. The framers of the Constitution intended free enterprise in religion as well as in the economy. “It is not true,” say the authors, “that the founders designed a Christian commonwealth, which was then eroded by secular humanists and liberals; the reverse was true. The framers erected a godless federal constitutional structure, which was then undermined as God entered first the U.S. currency in 1863, then the federal mail service in 1912, and finally the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954” (p. 143). The authors write as if they had never heard of the values of compromise or of the maxim de minimus non curat lex.

The Religious Right today, say the authors, supports economic laissez-faire but “in the name of a restored religious tyranny” does considerable disservice to the framers, “who rejected the central premise of the Christian commonwealth and in its stead created a secular state,” allowing individuals to decide matters of religion for themselves (p. 86). The framers deliberately planned a “godless Constitution,” but meant it as an act of “reverence” that revealed their respect for religion when left to personal conscience without state intervention of any sort. Advocates of the secular state triumphed in the crucial but bitter debate during the controversy over ratification of the Constitution. The authors describe that debate as “one of the most important public debates ever held in America over the place of religion in politics. The advocates of a secular state won, and it is their Constitution we reverence today” (p. 143). They banned religious tests for voting and office holding, a remarkable achievement in view of the fact that in 1787 eleven of the thirteen states—all but Virginia and New York—maintained religious tests in their constitutions.

All of this is succinctly and enlighteningly summarized by the authors in this little book of less than 200 pages that is intended for the general reader, a fact that they claim justifies their omission of notes. The book has a highly selective and inadequate bibliography that omits relevant works by Anson Phelps Stoke, Perry Miller, Leo Pfeffer, and me. The writing is clear and at times a bit breezy, as when the authors conclude a good summary of Isaac Backus, the great Baptist leader, by writing, “It was time, Backus in effect said, for Baptists to...