Church, State, and the Crisis in American Secularism

Conclusion: Perfecting Democracy

246 C o n c l u s i o n : P e r f e c t i n g D e m o c r a c y Jeffrey Stout’s American Academy of Religion’s 2007 presidential address concerned the relationship among secularism, religion, and democracy .1Heclaimedthatsomesecularistsbelievethatreligionmustbe removedfrom thepublic squareinorderto safeguard democracy. To the extent that religion must be privatized, however, it is clear that ordinary democratic processes are unlikely to accomplish the goal. Americans are much too religious for that. Thus one is left either with some form of coercion—even if accomplished through the courts rather than the Gulag—or an unperfected democracy. Stout then went on to argue that democracy open to religion yields better democracy. He pointed to the great reform movements in American history, such as the antislavery movement, that included religious supportaswellaswhattodaywouldbecalledsecularsupport.AndStout does not believe that this is only an American phenomenon. He also invoked the example of South Africa. Therelationshipofreligionandsecularismisthefundamentalquestion of American political and legal life today. It is not always the questiononthesurface .But,likeracialrelations,itisoftenthequestionbelow the surface. In the name of the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has promised to the American people a public square in which government will be neutral toward religion. That promise has been understood tomean the eradication of religion in that official space. Since thateradi- Conclusion 247 cationhasnotoccurredand,asStoutpointsout,isnotlikelytooccur,the Court may be thought to have failed in its obligation to democratic life. The point of this book is to suggest that the Supreme Court was right in its promise but wrong—deeply wrong—in its understanding of the implication of that promise. A government neutral toward religion is what is needed in an era of growing secularism. But that government need not avoid religion, including its images, language, and symbols. Secularism does not need to banish religion from the public square in order to redeem the promise of neutrality. Instead, secularism needs to find the common ground with religion that will enable a real commonwealth to emerge. Such common ground is available only if we change our frame of reference to seek the secular meaning of religious claims. As Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.” Nor, as I hope this book shows, is there any reason for us to be enemies. We can all share this democracy in order to form a more perfect one. ...