Monday, May 15, 2006,

Theocracy? Maybe so

Robert Benne got technical. He wrote, under the headline "The bogus theocracy charge" (April 21 Commentary page), "no one of importance is proposing that the clergy rule or that sacred law replace secular -- the technical definition of theocracy."

To be technical, both the American Heritage Dictionary and the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary agree that the term “theocracy” also applies to “government of a state by officials who are regarded as divinely guided” or “a government ruled by or subject to religious authority.”

How about officials who regard themselves as "divinely guided"? I have no reason to think that George W. Bush is joking when he says God called him to the presidency.

Benne has entered the great national debate on the relations between church and state with a near complete list of the values that inform “religious conservatives” (his term). Each of his paragraphs is worthy of a full-scale presentation by both sides of this debate, the “other” side being perhaps the “religious liberals,” of which I claim to be one.

Among the guiding principles of Unitarian Universalists -- but not unique to us — are “the inherent worth and dignity of every human being” and “the use of the democratic process.”

Religious conservatives exercise their democratic right to vote for candidates expressing their values, but so do religious liberals. Where the divide lies is along that obscure “wall of separation,” that First Amendment to whose protection Benne calls. Noah Feldman, in his marvelous study “Divided by God”" traced the history of that first article of the Bill of Rights from the very founding of the colonies up to the present day.

Initially the amendment was intended to protect churches (not "The Church") from the state. The 13 states already in 1789 harbored so many denominations that the authors of the Bill of Rights designed the First Amendment to protect them from any attempt by the federal government to select one of them to dominate over the others. As part of that it was intended that not one penny derived from taxes should be used to advance any of them.

Today the shoe is on the other foot: How do we protect the state from “The Church”?

The intent of the First Amendment was summed up by Feldman in just four words: “No coercion, no money.”

Let me describe some of the history of two examples of coercion based on religious values — consumption of alcoholic beverages and the use of birth control devices. For decades the Women's Christian Temperance Union fought the excesses of alcoholism among the working classes and finally succeeded with a constitutional amendment, the so- called Prohibition Amendment. The unintended consequences were so horrible and evident to all that Prohibition became the sole constitutional amendment ever to be repealed — by a subsequent amendment.

Birth control is abhorred by the leaders of many religions, especially the pope. Benne implies that that is his position, writing that “marriage is an institution based upon the union of a man and woman for the procreation of children.” Many of us can recall the days when condoms could be sold only by a pharmacy "solely for the prevention of disease." It took a Supreme Court decision to put an end to this hypocrisy. Now the Bush administration tries to stop the use of condoms for this very purpose, to stop the spread of a dread disease, namely AIDS, in Africa.

Feldman proposes a deal between the religious liberals and the religious conservatives, based on the true meaning of the First Amendment: “No coercion, no money.”

We should abandon efforts to restrict religious expression by public officials and in public life. Let the Pledge of Allegiance continue to contain the words “under God,” for example, provided our children who may become agnostic or atheist may fall silent for those two words and are not forced by teacher or peers to recite them.

Let Ten Commandment monuments — in some agreed version — be placed in the courthouses. Why not? But they must be paid by private funds, that's all.

The disbursement of public funds to faith-based charities or school vouchers for parochial schools, those are very complicated subjects that I hope to come back to another day. The touchstone is — you guessed it — “no coercion, no money.”

One issue not touched on by Benne is the use of the pulpit for electoral recommendations, frowned on by the IRS, a very touchy issue indeed. Exempting churches from tax liability may violate our rule of “no money,” but making endorsements from the pulpit may also violate the first part, “no coercion.” I am convinced that there is a First Amendment paradox lurking here.

Except for his sneering reference to “the chattering classes,” of which I suppose I'm a member, Benne offers a serious and valid contribution to the great national debate on values. I intend to take part in that debate; I intend to keep my end of it civil. We are both looking to convince the voters of our values. There are other religious liberals ready to take part. We may use humor and satire to make our point but not vitriolic sarcasm.

Let the debate go on. The theocracy charge may not be so bogus after all. There are two “first Tuesdays in November” to go before the big one in 2008.

Morton Nadler
Nadler, of Blacksburg, is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation.

UUC Home Page

sermons, articles, etc.